334 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26364512)
1. Characteristics and international comparability of the Finnish matrix sentence test in cochlear implant recipients.
Dietz A; Buschermöhle M; Sivonen V; Willberg T; Aarnisalo AA; Lenarz T; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():80-7. PubMed ID: 26364512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Do you hear the noise? The German matrix sentence test with a fixed noise level in subjects with normal hearing and hearing impairment.
Wardenga N; Batsoulis C; Wagener KC; Brand T; Lenarz T; Maier H
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():71-9. PubMed ID: 26555195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test.
Zokoll MA; Fidan D; Türkyılmaz D; Hochmuth S; Ergenç İ; Sennaroğlu G; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():51-61. PubMed ID: 26443486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests.
Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B; Brand T; Jürgens T
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():62-70. PubMed ID: 26097982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An Italian matrix sentence test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise.
Puglisi GE; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Visentin C; Astolfi A; Prodi N; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():44-50. PubMed ID: 26371592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test.
Warzybok A; Zokoll M; Wardenga N; Ozimek E; Boboshko M; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():35-43. PubMed ID: 25843088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Investigation of a matrix sentence test in noise: reproducibility and discrimination function in cochlear implant patients.
Hey M; Hocke T; Hedderich J; Müller-Deile J
Int J Audiol; 2014 Dec; 53(12):895-902. PubMed ID: 25140602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients.
Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Spectral contrast enhancement improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implants.
Nogueira W; Rode T; Büchner A
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):728-39. PubMed ID: 26936556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation?
Hochmuth S; Jürgens T; Brand T; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():23-34. PubMed ID: 26486466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Investigation into the applicability and optimization of the Dutch matrix sentence test for use with cochlear implant users.
Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Houben R; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2014 Nov; 53(11):817-28. PubMed ID: 24975235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. An adaptive Australian Sentence Test in Noise (AuSTIN).
Dawson PW; Hersbach AA; Swanson BA
Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):592-600. PubMed ID: 23598772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. How much does language proficiency by non-native listeners influence speech audiometric tests in noise?
Warzybok A; Brand T; Wagener KC; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():88-99. PubMed ID: 26344170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Pulse-spreading harmonic complex as an alternative carrier for vocoder simulations of cochlear implants.
Mesnildrey Q; Hilkhuysen G; Macherey O
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):986-91. PubMed ID: 26936577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Overcoming language barriers: Matrix sentence tests with closed speech corpora.
Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():1-2. PubMed ID: 26365793
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
