732 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27447758)
21. Combined spectral and temporal enhancement to improve cochlear-implant speech perception.
Bhattacharya A; Vandali A; Zeng FG
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2951-60. PubMed ID: 22087923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.
Brochier T; McDermott HJ; McKay CM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4097. PubMed ID: 28618807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The use of cochlear's SCAN and wireless microphones to improve speech understanding in noise with the Nucleus6® CP900 processor.
De Ceulaer G; Pascoal D; Vanpoucke F; Govaerts PJ
Int J Audiol; 2017 Nov; 56(11):837-843. PubMed ID: 28695749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.
Lamping W; Goehring T; Marozeau J; Carlyon RP
Hear Res; 2020 Jun; 391():107969. PubMed ID: 32320925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Amplitude-mapping effects on speech intelligibility with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants.
van Hoesel R; Böhm M; Battmer RD; Beckschebe J; Lenarz T
Ear Hear; 2005 Aug; 26(4):381-8. PubMed ID: 16079633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Consonant recognition as a function of the number of stimulation channels in the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.
Reiss LA; Turner CW; Karsten SA; Erenberg SR; Taylor J; Gantz BJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3406-17. PubMed ID: 23145621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.
Sagi E; Svirsky MA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Feb; 141(2):1027. PubMed ID: 28253672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users.
Hersbach AA; Arora K; Mauger SJ; Dawson PW
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(4):e13-23. PubMed ID: 22555182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.
Carroll J; Tiaden S; Zeng FG
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2054-62. PubMed ID: 21973360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant.
Lenarz T; James C; Cuda D; Fitzgerald O'Connor A; Frachet B; Frijns JH; Klenzner T; Laszig R; Manrique M; Marx M; Merkus P; Mylanus EA; Offeciers E; Pesch J; Ramos-Macias A; Robier A; Sterkers O; Uziel A
Int J Audiol; 2013 Dec; 52(12):838-48. PubMed ID: 23992489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.
Dorman MF; Cook S; Spahr A; Zhang T; Loiselle L; Schramm D; Whittingham J; Gifford R
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():107-11. PubMed ID: 25285624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.
Firszt JB; Holden LK; Skinner MW; Tobey EA; Peterson A; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Wackym PA
Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):375-87. PubMed ID: 15292777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Speech intelligibility and subjective benefit in single-sided deaf adults after cochlear implantation.
Finke M; Strauß-Schier A; Kludt E; Büchner A; Illg A
Hear Res; 2017 May; 348():112-119. PubMed ID: 28286233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Objective assessment of electrode discrimination with the auditory change complex in adult cochlear implant users.
Mathew R; Undurraga J; Li G; Meerton L; Boyle P; Shaida A; Selvadurai D; Jiang D; Vickers D
Hear Res; 2017 Oct; 354():86-101. PubMed ID: 28826636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
