378 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. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.
Fu QJ; Nogaki G
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2005 Mar; 6(1):19-27. PubMed ID: 15735937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
