396 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26936556)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.
Srinivasan AG; Padilla M; Shannon RV; Landsberger DM
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():29-36. PubMed ID: 23467170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. A beamformer post-filter for cochlear implant noise reduction.
Hersbach AA; Grayden DB; Fallon JB; McDermott HJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2412-20. PubMed ID: 23556606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Adding simultaneous stimulating channels to reduce power consumption in cochlear implants.
Langner F; Saoji AA; Büchner A; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 345():96-107. PubMed ID: 28104408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Predicting the speech reception threshold of cochlear implant listeners using an envelope-correlation based measure.
Yousefian N; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3399-405. PubMed ID: 23145620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Two-microphone spatial filtering improves speech reception for cochlear-implant users in reverberant conditions with multiple noise sources.
Goldsworthy RL
Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25330772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing.
Oxenham AJ; Kreft HA
Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
