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 *

373 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27090115)

  • 1. The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech: Cochlear Implant Users and Normal Hearing Listeners.
    Bhargava P; Gaudrain E; Başkent D
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Oct; 17(5):475-91. PubMed ID: 27090115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Nelson PB; Jin SH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 May; 115(5 Pt 1):2286-94. PubMed ID: 15139640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Top-Down Processes in Simulated Electric-Acoustic Hearing: The Effect of Linguistic Context on Bimodal Benefit for Temporally Interrupted Speech.
    Oh SH; Donaldson GS; Kong YY
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(5):582-92. PubMed ID: 27007220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On the relationship between auditory cognition and speech intelligibility in cochlear implant users: An ERP study.
    Finke M; Büchner A; Ruigendijk E; Meyer M; Sandmann P
    Neuropsychologia; 2016 Jul; 87():169-181. PubMed ID: 27212057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Semantic influences on the perception of degraded speech by individuals with cochlear implants.
    Patro C; Mendel LL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Mar; 147(3):1778. PubMed ID: 32237796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of visual cues on top-down restoration of temporally interrupted speech, with and without further degradations.
    Benard MR; Başkent D
    Hear Res; 2015 Oct; 328():24-33. PubMed ID: 26117407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Perception of speech produced by native and nonnative talkers by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with cochlear implants.
    Ji C; Galvin JJ; Chang YP; Xu A; Fu QJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 57(2):532-54. PubMed ID: 24686901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Influences of noise-interruption and information-bearing acoustic changes on understanding simulated electric-acoustic speech.
    Stilp C; Donaldson G; Oh S; Kong YY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Nov; 140(5):3971. PubMed ID: 27908030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cognitive factors contribute to speech perception in cochlear-implant users and age-matched normal-hearing listeners under vocoded conditions.
    O'Neill ER; Kreft HA; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Jul; 146(1):195. PubMed ID: 31370651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Speech Masking in Normal and Impaired Hearing: Interactions Between Frequency Selectivity and Inherent Temporal Fluctuations in Noise.
    Oxenham AJ; Kreft HA
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2016; 894():125-132. PubMed ID: 27080653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise.
    Pals C; Sarampalis A; van Dijk M; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 29757801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of age and hearing loss on the intelligibility of interrupted speech.
    Shafiro V; Sheft S; Risley R; Gygi B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):745-56. PubMed ID: 25698009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees.
    Gnansia D; Pressnitzer D; Péan V; Meyer B; Lorenzi C
    Hear Res; 2010 Jun; 265(1-2):46-53. PubMed ID: 20197084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Predicting the intelligibility of vocoded speech.
    Chen F; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):331-8. PubMed ID: 21206363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Masking release and modulation interference in cochlear implant and simulation listeners.
    Jin SH; Nie Y; Nelson P
    Am J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 22(1):135-46. PubMed ID: 23800809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Spectral-Temporal Trade-Off in Vocoded Sentence Recognition: Effects of Age, Hearing Thresholds, and Working Memory.
    Shader MJ; Yancey CM; Gordon-Salant S; Goupell MJ
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1226-1235. PubMed ID: 32032222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.