325 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25445816)
1. Gradual adaptation to auditory frequency mismatch.
Svirsky MA; Talavage TM; Sinha S; Neuburger H; Azadpour M
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():163-70. PubMed ID: 25445816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Perception and coding of interaural time differences with bilateral cochlear implants.
Laback B; Egger K; Majdak P
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():138-50. PubMed ID: 25456088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The multi-channel cochlear implant: multi-disciplinary development of electrical stimulation of the cochlea and the resulting clinical benefit.
Clark GM
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():4-13. PubMed ID: 25159273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Getting a decent (but sparse) signal to the brain for users of cochlear implants.
Wilson BS
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():24-38. PubMed ID: 25500178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Speech perception with interaction-compensated simultaneous stimulation and long pulse durations in cochlear implant users.
Schatzer R; Koroleva I; Griessner A; Levin S; Kusovkov V; Yanov Y; Zierhofer C
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():99-106. PubMed ID: 25457654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Development and evaluation of the Nurotron 26-electrode cochlear implant system.
Zeng FG; Rebscher SJ; Fu QJ; Chen H; Sun X; Yin L; Ping L; Feng H; Yang S; Gong S; Yang B; Kang HY; Gao N; Chi F
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():188-99. PubMed ID: 25281795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Considering optogenetic stimulation for cochlear implants.
Jeschke M; Moser T
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():224-34. PubMed ID: 25601298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Speech enhancement based on neural networks improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implant users.
Goehring T; Bolner F; Monaghan JJ; van Dijk B; Zarowski A; Bleeck S
Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():183-194. PubMed ID: 27913315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessment of responses to cochlear implant stimulation at different levels of the auditory pathway.
Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():67-76. PubMed ID: 25445817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Pupillometry Reveals That Context Benefit in Speech Perception Can Be Disrupted by Later-Occurring Sounds, Especially in Listeners With Cochlear Implants.
Winn MB; Moore AN
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518808962. PubMed ID: 30375282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Binaural hearing with electrical stimulation.
Kan A; Litovsky RY
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():127-37. PubMed ID: 25193553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Spectro-temporal cues enhance modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
Zheng Y; Escabí M; Litovsky RY
Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():45-54. PubMed ID: 28601530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Contralateral suppression of human hearing sensitivity in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users.
Nogueira W; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lopez-Poveda E
Hear Res; 2019 Mar; 373():121-129. PubMed ID: 29941311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.
Dorman MF; Cook S; Spahr A; Zhang T; Loiselle L; Schramm D; Whittingham J; Gifford R
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():107-11. PubMed ID: 25285624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Low-frequency signals support perceptual organization of implant-simulated speech for adults and children.
Nittrouer S; Tarr E; Bolster V; Caldwell-Tarr A; Moberly AC; Lowenstein JH
Int J Audiol; 2014 Apr; 53(4):270-84. PubMed ID: 24456179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The role of continuous low-frequency harmonicity cues for interrupted speech perception in bimodal hearing.
Oh SH; Donaldson GS; Kong YY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Apr; 139(4):1747. PubMed ID: 27106322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Spectral density affects the intelligibility of tone-vocoded speech: Implications for cochlear implant simulations.
Rosen S; Zhang Y; Speers K
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Sep; 138(3):EL318-23. PubMed ID: 26428833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Impact of room acoustic parameters on speech and music perception among participants with cochlear implants.
Eurich B; Klenzner T; Oehler M
Hear Res; 2019 Jun; 377():122-132. PubMed ID: 30933704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of envelope bandwidth on importance functions for cochlear implant simulations.
Whitmal NA; DeMaio D; Lin R
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):733-44. PubMed ID: 25698008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
