2443 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28527538)
1. 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]
2. Speech Segregation in Active Middle Ear Stimulation: Masking Release With Changing Fundamental Frequency.
Auinger AB; Liepins R; Kaider A; Vyskocil E; Riss D; Arnoldner C
Ear Hear; 2021; 42(3):709-717. PubMed ID: 33369941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Electric and acoustic harmonic integration predicts speech-in-noise performance in hybrid cochlear implant users.
Bonnard D; Schwalje A; Gantz B; Choi I
Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():223-230. PubMed ID: 29980380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
Gifford RH; Stecker GC
Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
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. 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]
9. Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.
Carroll J; Tiaden S; Zeng FG
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2054-62. PubMed ID: 21973360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.
Goldsworthy RL; Delhorne LA; Braida LD; Reed CM
Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):27-44. PubMed ID: 23429419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing.
Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():185-196. PubMed ID: 28688755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.
Dorman MF; Cook S; Spahr A; Zhang T; Loiselle L; Schramm D; Whittingham J; Gifford R
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():107-11. PubMed ID: 25285624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [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]
18. Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing.
Oxenham AJ; Kreft HA
Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Objective measure of binaural processing: Acoustic change complex in response to interaural phase differences.
Fan Y; Gifford RH
Hear Res; 2024 Jul; 448():109020. PubMed ID: 38763034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
