244 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28526871)
1. Electro-Tactile Stimulation Enhances Cochlear Implant Speech Recognition in Noise.
Huang J; Sheffield B; Lin P; Zeng FG
Sci Rep; 2017 May; 7(1):2196. PubMed ID: 28526871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Electro-tactile stimulation (ETS) enhances cochlear-implant Mandarin tone recognition.
Huang J; Chang J; Zeng FG
World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2017 Dec; 3(4):219-223. PubMed ID: 29780966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Electro-Tactile Stimulation Enhances Cochlear-Implant Melody Recognition: Effects of Rhythm and Musical Training.
Huang J; Lu T; Sheffield B; Zeng FG
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(1):106-113. PubMed ID: 31884501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Acceptance and Benefits of Electro-Acoustic Stimulation for Conventional-Length Electrode Arrays.
Spitzer ER; Waltzman SB; Landsberger DM; Friedmann DR
Audiol Neurootol; 2021; 26(1):17-26. PubMed ID: 32721977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Speech perception with electric-acoustic stimulation : Comparison with bilateral cochlear implant users in different noise conditions].
Rader T
HNO; 2015 Feb; 63(2):85-93. PubMed ID: 25515123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing.
Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
Ear Hear; 2022; 43(2):631-645. PubMed ID: 34593687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing.
Kong YY; Stickney GS; Zeng FG
J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Mar; 117(3 Pt 1):1351-61. PubMed ID: 15807023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.
Turner CW; Gantz BJ; Vidal C; Behrens A; Henry BA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Apr; 115(4):1729-35. PubMed ID: 15101651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant.
Skarzynski H; Lorens A; Matusiak M; Porowski M; Skarzynski PH; James CJ
Audiol Neurootol; 2012; 17(2):82-91. PubMed ID: 21846981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Bilateral electric acoustic stimulation: a comparison of partial and deep cochlear electrode insertion. A longitudinal case study.
Kleine Punte A; Vermeire K; Van de Heyning P
Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 2010; 67():144-152. PubMed ID: 19955731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Differences in neural encoding of speech in noise between cochlear implant users with and without preserved acoustic hearing.
Shim H; Kim S; Hong J; Na Y; Woo J; Hansen M; Gantz B; Choi I
Hear Res; 2023 Jan; 427():108649. PubMed ID: 36462377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Trimodal speech perception: how residual acoustic hearing supplements cochlear-implant consonant recognition in the presence of visual cues.
Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JG
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):e99-112. PubMed ID: 25514796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Pre- and Postoperative Binaural Unmasking for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.
Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JGW
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):554-567. PubMed ID: 28301390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
