These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26409068)

  • 1. Information theoretic evaluation of a noiseband-based cochlear implant simulator.
    Aguiar DE; Taylor NE; Li J; Gazanfari DK; Talavage TM; Laflen JB; Neuberger H; Svirsky MA
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():185-193. PubMed ID: 26409068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A neural-based vocoder implementation for evaluating cochlear implant coding strategies.
    El Boghdady N; Kegel A; Lai WK; Dillier N
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():136-149. PubMed ID: 26775182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: contributions of static and dynamic spectral cues.
    Donaldson GS; Rogers CL; Cardenas ES; Russell BA; Hanna NH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3021-8. PubMed ID: 24116437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Acoustic Analysis of Persian Vowels in Cochlear Implant Users: A Comparison With Hearing-impaired Children Using Hearing Aid and Normal-hearing Children.
    Jafari N; Yadegari F; Jalaie S
    J Voice; 2016 Nov; 30(6):763.e1-763.e7. PubMed ID: 26725549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparing sound localization deficits in bilateral cochlear-implant users and vocoder simulations with normal-hearing listeners.
    Jones H; Kan A; Litovsky RY
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25385244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Cochlear implant simulator with independent representation of the full spiral ganglion.
    Grange JA; Culling JF; Harris NSL; Bergfeld S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):EL484. PubMed ID: 29195445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.
    Sagi E; Svirsky MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Feb; 141(2):1027. PubMed ID: 28253672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Rate and onset cues can improve cochlear implant synthetic vowel recognition in noise.
    Mc Laughlin M; Reilly RB; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1546-60. PubMed ID: 23464025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Speech Perception With Combined Electric-Acoustic Stimulation: A Simulation and Model Comparison.
    Rader T; Adel Y; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):e314-25. PubMed ID: 25989069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Predicting effects of hearing-instrument signal processing on consonant perception.
    Zaar J; Schmitt N; Derleth RP; DiNino M; Arenberg JG; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):3216. PubMed ID: 29195458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of congruent and incongruent visual cues on speech perception and brain activity in cochlear implant users.
    Song JJ; Lee HJ; Kang H; Lee DS; Chang SO; Oh SH
    Brain Struct Funct; 2015 Mar; 220(2):1109-25. PubMed ID: 24402676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of spectral resolution on spectral contrast effects in cochlear-implant users.
    Feng L; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jun; 143(6):EL468. PubMed ID: 29960500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Consonant recognition as a function of the number of stimulation channels in the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.
    Reiss LA; Turner CW; Karsten SA; Erenberg SR; Taylor J; Gantz BJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3406-17. PubMed ID: 23145621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A Comparison of Persian Vowel Production in Hearing-Impaired Children Using a Cochlear Implant and Normal-Hearing Children.
    Jafari N; Drinnan M; Mohamadi R; Yadegari F; Nourbakhsh M; Torabinezhad F
    J Voice; 2016 May; 30(3):340-4. PubMed ID: 25990321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Interaural envelope correlation change discrimination in bilateral cochlear implantees: effects of mismatch, centering, and onset of deafness.
    Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1282-97. PubMed ID: 25786942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.