332 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26364512)
21. Construction and evaluation of the Mandarin Chinese matrix (CMNmatrix) sentence test for the assessment of speech recognition in noise.
Hu H; Xi X; Wong LLN; Hochmuth S; Warzybok A; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):838-850. PubMed ID: 30178681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients.
Vroegop JL; Homans NC; Goedegebure A; van der Schroeff MP
Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):858-863. PubMed ID: 30261771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The development and evaluation of the Finnish Matrix Sentence Test for speech intelligibility assessment.
Dietz A; Buschermöhle M; Aarnisalo AA; Vanhanen A; Hyyrynen T; Aaltonen O; Löppönen H; Zokoll MA; Kollmeier B
Acta Otolaryngol; 2014 Jul; 134(7):728-37. PubMed ID: 24807850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.
Rana B; Buchholz JM; Morgan C; Sharma M; Weller T; Konganda SA; Shirai K; Kawano A
Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517722106. PubMed ID: 28752811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Optimising the effect of noise reduction algorithm ClearVoice in cochlear implant users by increasing the maximum comfort levels.
Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):230-235. PubMed ID: 29065731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Matrix sentence intelligibility prediction using an automatic speech recognition system.
Schädler MR; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():100-7. PubMed ID: 26383042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. On the Feasibility of Using Behavioral Listening Effort Test Methods to Evaluate Auditory Performance in Cochlear Implant Users.
Hendrikse MME; Dingemanse G; Goedegebure A
Trends Hear; 2024; 28():23312165241240572. PubMed ID: 38676325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant.
Lenarz T; James C; Cuda D; Fitzgerald O'Connor A; Frachet B; Frijns JH; Klenzner T; Laszig R; Manrique M; Marx M; Merkus P; Mylanus EA; Offeciers E; Pesch J; Ramos-Macias A; Robier A; Sterkers O; Uziel A
Int J Audiol; 2013 Dec; 52(12):838-48. PubMed ID: 23992489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. The potential of onset enhancement for increased speech intelligibility in auditory prostheses.
Koning R; Wouters J
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2569-81. PubMed ID: 23039450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The effects of reverberant self- and overlap-masking on speech recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
Desmond JM; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jun; 135(6):EL304-10. PubMed ID: 24907838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise.
Hochmuth S; Brand T; Zokoll MA; Castro FZ; Wardenga N; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2012 Jul; 51(7):536-44. PubMed ID: 22537033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Assessment of speech recognition abilities in quiet and in noise: a comparison between self-administered home testing and testing in the clinic for adult cochlear implant users.
de Graaff F; Huysmans E; Merkus P; Theo Goverts S; Smits C
Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):872-880. PubMed ID: 30261772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. An algorithm that administers adaptive speech-in-noise testing to a specified reliability at selectable points on the psychometric function.
Keidser G; Dillon H; Mejia J; Nguyen CV
Int J Audiol; 2013 Nov; 52(11):795-800. PubMed ID: 23957444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Effect of companding on speech recognition in quiet and noise for listeners with ANSD.
Narne VK; Barman A; Deepthi M
Int J Audiol; 2014 Feb; 53(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 24237041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The use of cochlear's SCAN and wireless microphones to improve speech understanding in noise with the Nucleus6® CP900 processor.
De Ceulaer G; Pascoal D; Vanpoucke F; Govaerts PJ
Int J Audiol; 2017 Nov; 56(11):837-843. PubMed ID: 28695749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Test-retest reliability of the Toy Discrimination Test with a masker of noise or babble in children with hearing impairment.
Lovett R; Summerfield Q; Vickers D
Int J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 52(6):377-84. PubMed ID: 23516964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.
Firszt JB; Holden LK; Skinner MW; Tobey EA; Peterson A; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Wackym PA
Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):375-87. PubMed ID: 15292777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Relationship between multipulse integration and speech recognition with cochlear implants.
Zhou N; Pfingst BE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1257. PubMed ID: 25190399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
