191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26723365)
1. Precedence based speech segregation in bilateral cochlear implant users.
Hossain S; Montazeri V; Assmann PF; Litovsky RY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):EL545-50. PubMed ID: 26723365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Electric and acoustic harmonic integration predicts speech-in-noise performance in hybrid cochlear implant users.
Bonnard D; Schwalje A; Gantz B; Choi I
Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():223-230. PubMed ID: 29980380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Head shadow enhancement with low-frequency beamforming improves sound localization and speech perception for simulated bimodal listeners.
Dieudonné B; Francart T
Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():78-84. PubMed ID: 29555110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1246. PubMed ID: 25190398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T
Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Effects of insertion depth on spatial speech perception in noise for simulations of cochlear implants and single-sided deafness.
Zhou X; Li H; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Yuan W
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S41-S48. PubMed ID: 27367147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Voice gender and the segregation of competing talkers: Perceptual learning in cochlear implant simulations.
Sullivan JR; Assmann PF; Hossain S; Schafer EC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1643. PubMed ID: 28372046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Simultaneous suppression of noise and reverberation in cochlear implants using a ratio masking strategy.
Hazrati O; Sadjadi SO; Loizou PC; Hansen JH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):3759-65. PubMed ID: 24180786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Effects of early and late reflections on intelligibility of reverberated speech by cochlear implant listeners.
Hu Y; Kokkinakis K
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL22-8. PubMed ID: 24437852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The impact of reverberant self-masking and overlap-masking effects on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners (L).
Kokkinakis K; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1099-102. PubMed ID: 21895052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants.
Ali H; Hazrati O; Tobey EA; Hansen JH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):EL242. PubMed ID: 25190428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
