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 *

173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27604785)

  • 1. Forward-Masked Frequency Selectivity Improvements in Simulated and Actual Cochlear Implant Users Using a Preprocessing Algorithm.
    Langner F; Jürgens T
    Trends Hear; 2016 Sep; 20():. PubMed ID: 27604785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Meta-Analysis on the Identification of Linguistic and Emotional Prosody in Cochlear Implant Users and Vocoder Simulations.
    Everhardt MK; Sarampalis A; Coler M; Başkent D; Lowie W
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1092-1102. PubMed ID: 32251011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Effect of Interaural Mismatches on Contralateral Unmasking With Single-Sided Vocoders.
    Wess JM; Brungart DS; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(3):374-386. PubMed ID: 28002083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Music Is More Enjoyable With Two Ears, Even If One of Them Receives a Degraded Signal Provided By a Cochlear Implant.
    Landsberger DM; Vermeire K; Stupak N; Lavender A; Neukam J; Van de Heyning P; Svirsky MA
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(3):476-490. PubMed ID: 31469701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Perception of musical timbre by cochlear implant listeners: a multidimensional scaling study.
    Macherey O; Delpierre A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):426-36. PubMed ID: 23334356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of Compression on Musical Sound Quality in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Gilbert M; Jiradejvong P; Limb C
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(6):1368-1375. PubMed ID: 30946137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Music perception and appraisal: cochlear implant users and simulated cochlear implant listening.
    Wright R; Uchanski RM
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):350-65; quiz 379. PubMed ID: 22533978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Music perception by cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners as measured by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia.
    Cooper WB; Tobey E; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2008 Aug; 29(4):618-26. PubMed ID: 18469714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.
    Bierer JA; Faulkner KF
    Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):247-58. PubMed ID: 20090533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Comparing sound localization deficits in bilateral cochlear-implant users and vocoder simulations with normal-hearing listeners.
    Jones H; Kan A; Litovsky RY
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25385244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Memory Span for Spoken Digits in Adults With Cochlear Implants or Typical Hearing: Effects of Age and Identification Ability.
    Cleary M; Wilkinson T; Wilson L; Goupell MJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 61(8):2099-2114. PubMed ID: 30073267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Role of semantic context and talker variability in speech perception of cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    O'Neill ER; Parke MN; Kreft HA; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Feb; 149(2):1224. PubMed ID: 33639827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Binaural Cochlear Implant Sound Coding Strategy Inspired by the Contralateral Medial Olivocochlear Reflex.
    Lopez-Poveda EA; Eustaquio-Martín A; Stohl JS; Wolford RD; Schatzer R; Wilson BS
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):e138-48. PubMed ID: 26862711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Effect of Residual Acoustic Hearing and Adaptation to Uncertainty on Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence From Eye-Tracking.
    McMurray B; Farris-Trimble A; Seedorff M; Rigler H
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(1):e37-51. PubMed ID: 26317298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Deeper Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion Angle Improves Detection of Musical Sound Quality Deterioration Related to Bass Frequency Removal.
    Roy AT; Penninger RT; Pearl MS; Wuerfel W; Jiradejvong P; Carver C; Buechner A; Limb CJ
    Otol Neurotol; 2016 Feb; 37(2):146-51. PubMed ID: 26669557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. High-level psychophysical tuning curves: forward masking in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Nelson DA
    J Speech Hear Res; 1991 Dec; 34(6):1233-49. PubMed ID: 1787705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Perceptually aligning apical frequency regions leads to more binaural fusion of speech in a cochlear implant simulation.
    Staisloff HE; Lee DH; Aronoff JM
    Hear Res; 2016 Jul; 337():59-64. PubMed ID: 27208791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.