249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28372106)
1. Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users.
Zhou N
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):EL243. PubMed ID: 28372106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Cochlear implant simulator with independent representation of the full spiral ganglion.
Grange JA; Culling JF; Harris NSL; Bergfeld S
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):EL484. PubMed ID: 29195445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Evidence of across-channel processing for spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant listeners.
Won JH; Jones GL; Drennan WR; Jameyson EM; Rubinstein JT
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2088-97. PubMed ID: 21973363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users.
Jones GL; Won JH; Drennan WR; Rubinstein JT
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jan; 133(1):425-33. PubMed ID: 23297914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.
Scheperle RA; Tejani VD; Omtvedt JK; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Oleson JJ; Ozanne MV
Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():45-57. PubMed ID: 28432874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Spectro-temporal cues enhance modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
Zheng Y; Escabí M; Litovsky RY
Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():45-54. PubMed ID: 28601530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Deactivating cochlear implant electrodes to improve speech perception: A computational approach.
Sagi E; Svirsky MA
Hear Res; 2018 Dec; 370():316-328. PubMed ID: 30396747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.
Debruyne JA; Francart T; Janssen AM; Douma K; Brokx JP
Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):174-185. PubMed ID: 27758152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Relationship between multipulse integration and speech recognition with cochlear implants.
Zhou N; Pfingst BE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1257. PubMed ID: 25190399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Factors influencing speech perception in noise for 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants.
Ching TY; Zhang VW; Flynn C; Burns L; Button L; Hou S; McGhie K; Van Buynder P
Int J Audiol; 2018 May; 57(sup2):S70-S80. PubMed ID: 28687057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users.
Anderson ES; Oxenham AJ; Nelson PB; Nelson DA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Dec; 132(6):3925-34. PubMed ID: 23231122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Bimodal benefits in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users with contralateral residual acoustic hearing.
Yang HI; Zeng FG
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S17-S22. PubMed ID: 28485635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users.
Anderson ES; Nelson DA; Kreft H; Nelson PB; Oxenham AJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):364-75. PubMed ID: 21786905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Electroacoustic Stimulation.
Li C; Kuhlmey M; Kim AH
Otolaryngol Clin North Am; 2019 Apr; 52(2):311-322. PubMed ID: 30617011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant listeners via single electrode stimulation in relation to speech perception.
Liebscher T; Alberter K; Hoppe U
Int J Audiol; 2018 Dec; 57(12):933-940. PubMed ID: 30295156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
