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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26936562)

  • 1. Cochlear implant speech intelligibility outcomes with structured and unstructured binary mask errors.
    Kressner AA; Westermann A; Buchholz JM; Rozell CJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):800-10. PubMed ID: 26936562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Ideal time-frequency masking algorithms lead to different speech intelligibility and quality in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
    Koning R; Madhu N; Wouters J
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2015 Jan; 62(1):331-41. PubMed ID: 25167542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Blind binary masking for reverberation suppression in cochlear implants.
    Hazrati O; Lee J; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1607-14. PubMed ID: 23464030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Speech perception in simulated electric hearing exploits information-bearing acoustic change.
    Stilp CE; Goupell MJ; Kluender KR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Feb; 133(2):EL136-41. PubMed ID: 23363194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Large-scale training to increase speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners in novel noises.
    Chen J; Wang Y; Yoho SE; Wang D; Healy EW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 May; 139(5):2604. PubMed ID: 27250154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users.
    Bhargava P; Gaudrain E; Başkent D
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():113-23. PubMed ID: 24368138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Gradual adaptation to auditory frequency mismatch.
    Svirsky MA; Talavage TM; Sinha S; Neuburger H; Azadpour M
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():163-70. PubMed ID: 25445816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 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]
    of 6.