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 *

325 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28464686)

  • 41. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.
    Rana B; Buchholz JM; Morgan C; Sharma M; Weller T; Konganda SA; Shirai K; Kawano A
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517722106. PubMed ID: 28752811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Voice emotion recognition by cochlear-implanted children and their normally-hearing peers.
    Chatterjee M; Zion DJ; Deroche ML; Burianek BA; Limb CJ; Goren AP; Kulkarni AM; Christensen JA
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():151-62. PubMed ID: 25448167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Masking release and the contribution of obstruent consonants on speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant users.
    Li N; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Sep; 128(3):1262-71. PubMed ID: 20815461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. Effects of spectral resolution on spectral contrast effects in cochlear-implant users.
    Feng L; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jun; 143(6):EL468. PubMed ID: 29960500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Voice emotion perception and production in cochlear implant users.
    Jiam NT; Caldwell M; Deroche ML; Chatterjee M; Limb CJ
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 352():30-39. PubMed ID: 28088500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. The Acoustic Characteristics of the Voice in Cochlear-Implanted Children: A Longitudinal Study.
    Wang Y; Liang F; Yang J; Zhang X; Liu J; Zheng Y
    J Voice; 2017 Nov; 31(6):773.e21-773.e26. PubMed ID: 28623039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Effects of real-time cochlear implant simulation on speech production.
    Casserly ED
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 May; 137(5):2791-800. PubMed ID: 25994707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Effects of early and late reflections on intelligibility of reverberated speech by cochlear implant listeners.
    Hu Y; Kokkinakis K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL22-8. PubMed ID: 24437852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Acoustic realization of Mandarin neutral tone and tone sandhi in infant-directed speech and Lombard speech.
    Tang P; Xu Rattanasone N; Yuen I; Demuth K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):2823. PubMed ID: 29195426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. Assessment of speech recognition abilities in quiet and in noise: a comparison between self-administered home testing and testing in the clinic for adult cochlear implant users.
    de Graaff F; Huysmans E; Merkus P; Theo Goverts S; Smits C
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):872-880. PubMed ID: 30261772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Acoustic cue integration in speech intonation recognition with cochlear implants.
    Peng SC; Chatterjee M; Lu N
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Jun; 16(2):67-82. PubMed ID: 22790392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Cochlear implant speech intelligibility outcomes with structured and unstructured binary mask errors.
    Kressner AA; Westermann A; Buchholz JM; Rozell CJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):800-10. PubMed ID: 26936562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Identification of vowel length, word stress, and compound words and phrases by postlingually deafened cochlear implant listeners.
    Morris D; Magnusson L; Faulkner A; Jönsson R; Juul H
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Oct; 24(9):879-90. PubMed ID: 24224994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Effects of envelope bandwidth on importance functions for cochlear implant simulations.
    Whitmal NA; DeMaio D; Lin R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):733-44. PubMed ID: 25698008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Predicting the speech reception threshold of cochlear implant listeners using an envelope-correlation based measure.
    Yousefian N; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3399-405. PubMed ID: 23145620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The role of speech rate for Italian-speaking cochlear implant users: insights for everyday speech perception.
    Dincer D'Alessandro H; Boyle PJ; Ballantyne D; De Vincentiis M; Mancini P
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):851-857. PubMed ID: 30178699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.