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.
44. Does acoustic fundamental frequency information enhance cochlear implant performance? Mulhern L; Cullington H Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 Mar; 15(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 24597637 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Speech perception in individuals with auditory neuropathy. Zeng FG; Liu S J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):367-80. PubMed ID: 16671850 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Head shadow enhancement with low-frequency beamforming improves sound localization and speech perception for simulated bimodal listeners. Dieudonné B; Francart T Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():78-84. PubMed ID: 29555110 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. A simulation study of harmonics regeneration in noise reduction for electric and acoustic stimulation. Hu Y J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 May; 127(5):3145-53. PubMed ID: 21117763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Vocoder simulations of highly focused cochlear stimulation with limited dynamic range and discriminable steps. Stafford RC; Stafford JW; Wells JD; Loizou PC; Keller MD Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):262-70. PubMed ID: 24322978 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. 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]
50. Binaural interference with simulated electric acoustic stimulation. van Ginkel C; Gifford RH; Stecker GC J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Apr; 145(4):2445. PubMed ID: 31046315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Multimodal and Spectral Degradation Effects on Speech and Emotion Recognition in Adult Listeners. Ritter C; Vongpaisal T Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518804966. PubMed ID: 30378469 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Combined electric and acoustic hearing performance with Zebra® speech processor: speech reception, place, and temporal coding evaluation. Vaerenberg B; Péan V; Lesbros G; De Ceulaer G; Schauwers K; Daemers K; Gnansia D; Govaerts PJ Cochlear Implants Int; 2013 Jun; 14(3):150-7. PubMed ID: 23321588 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Effects of noise suppression and envelope dynamic range compression on the intelligibility of vocoded sentences for a tonal language. Chen F; Zheng D; Tsao Y J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Sep; 142(3):1157. PubMed ID: 28964090 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Optimizing maps for electric acoustic stimulation users. Yoon YS; Shin YR; Kim JM; Coltisor A; Chun YM Cochlear Implants Int; 2019 May; 20(3):106-115. PubMed ID: 30694120 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Frontotemporal activation differs between perception of simulated cochlear implant speech and speech in background noise: An image-based fNIRS study. Defenderfer J; Forbes S; Wijeakumar S; Hedrick M; Plyler P; Buss AT Neuroimage; 2021 Oct; 240():118385. PubMed ID: 34256138 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Discriminability and Perceptual Saliency of Temporal and Spectral Cues for Final Fricative Consonant Voicing in Simulated Cochlear-Implant and Bimodal Hearing. Kong YY; Winn MB; Poellmann K; Donaldson GS Trends Hear; 2016 Jun; 20():. PubMed ID: 27317666 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Factors affecting masking release in cochlear-implant vocoded speech. Li N; Loizou PC J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Jul; 126(1):338-46. PubMed ID: 19603890 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]