185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27908030)
1. 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]
2. Spectral and temporal resolutions of information-bearing acoustic changes for understanding vocoded sentences.
Stilp CE; Goupell MJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):844-55. PubMed ID: 25698018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Information-bearing acoustic change outperforms duration in predicting intelligibility of full-spectrum and noise-vocoded sentences.
Stilp CE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1518-29. PubMed ID: 24606287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing.
Chen F; Loizou PC
Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):259-67. PubMed ID: 20081538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Speech Perception With Combined Electric-Acoustic Stimulation: A Simulation and Model Comparison.
Rader T; Adel Y; Fastl H; Baumann U
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):e314-25. PubMed ID: 25989069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.
Helms Tillery K; Brown CA; Bacon SP
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jan; 131(1):416-23. PubMed ID: 22280603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Speech masking release in Hybrid cochlear implant users: Roles of spectral and temporal cues in electric-acoustic hearing.
Tejani VD; Brown CJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 May; 147(5):3667. PubMed ID: 32486815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.
Gifford RH; Davis TJ; Sunderhaus LW; Menapace C; Buck B; Crosson J; O'Neill L; Beiter A; Segel P
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):539-553. PubMed ID: 28301392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effects of introducing low-frequency harmonics in the perception of vocoded telephone speech.
Hu Y; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Sep; 128(3):1280-9. PubMed ID: 20815463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of speech degradation on top-down repair: phonemic restoration with simulations of cochlear implants and combined electric-acoustic stimulation.
Başkent D
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2012 Oct; 13(5):683-92. PubMed ID: 22569838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Simulation of speech perception with cochlear implants : Influence of frequency and level of fundamental frequency components with electronic acoustic stimulation].
Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
HNO; 2017 Mar; 65(3):237-242. PubMed ID: 27670421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
