247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29242894)
1. Gated Word Recognition by Postlingually Deafened Adults With Cochlear Implants: Influence of Semantic Context.
Patro C; Mendel LL
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2018 Jan; 61(1):145-158. PubMed ID: 29242894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Weighting of Prosodic and Lexical-Semantic Cues for Emotion Identification in Spectrally Degraded Speech and With Cochlear Implants.
Richter ME; Chatterjee M
Ear Hear; 2021 Nov-Dec 01; 42(6):1727-1740. PubMed ID: 34294630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Modeling open-set spoken word recognition in postlingually deafened adults after cochlear implantation: some preliminary results with the neighborhood activation model.
Meyer TA; Frisch SA; Pisoni DB; Miyamoto RT; Svirsky MA
Otol Neurotol; 2003 Jul; 24(4):612-20. PubMed ID: 12851554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Role of semantic context and talker variability in speech perception of cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
O'Neill ER; Parke MN; Kreft HA; Oxenham AJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Feb; 149(2):1224. PubMed ID: 33639827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Speech perception in children with cochlear implants: effects of lexical difficulty, talker variability, and word length.
Kirk KI; Hay-McCutcheon M; Sehgal ST; Miyamoto RT
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 2000 Dec; 185():79-81. PubMed ID: 11141016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Semantic influences on the perception of degraded speech by individuals with cochlear implants.
Patro C; Mendel LL
J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Mar; 147(3):1778. PubMed ID: 32237796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Lexical Access Changes Based on Listener Needs: Real-Time Word Recognition in Continuous Speech in Cochlear Implant Users.
Smith FX; McMurray B
Ear Hear; 2022 Sep-Oct 01; 43(5):1487-1501. PubMed ID: 35067570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Speech Rate Normalization and Phonemic Boundary Perception in Cochlear-Implant Users.
Jaekel BN; Newman RS; Goupell MJ
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2017 May; 60(5):1398-1416. PubMed ID: 28395319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Waiting for lexical access: Cochlear implants or severely degraded input lead listeners to process speech less incrementally.
McMurray B; Farris-Trimble A; Rigler H
Cognition; 2017 Dec; 169():147-164. PubMed ID: 28917133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Spectral Contrast Effects Reveal Different Acoustic Cues for Vowel Recognition in Cochlear-Implant Users.
Feng L; Oxenham AJ
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(4):990-997. PubMed ID: 31815819
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Some Neurocognitive Correlates of Noise-Vocoded Speech Perception in Children With Normal Hearing: A Replication and Extension of ).
Roman AS; Pisoni DB; Kronenberger WG; Faulkner KF
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(3):344-356. PubMed ID: 28045787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Children's recognition of spectrally degraded cartoon voices.
van Heugten M; Volkova A; Trehub SE; Schellenberg EG
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(1):118-25. PubMed ID: 24213020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Age-Related Changes in Voice Emotion Recognition by Postlingually Deafened Listeners With Cochlear Implants.
Cannon SA; Chatterjee M
Ear Hear; 2022; 43(2):323-334. PubMed ID: 34406157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Behavioral Measures of Temporal Processing and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.
Blankenship C; Zhang F; Keith R
J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Oct; 27(9):701-713. PubMed ID: 27718347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. On the relationship between auditory cognition and speech intelligibility in cochlear implant users: An ERP study.
Finke M; Büchner A; Ruigendijk E; Meyer M; Sandmann P
Neuropsychologia; 2016 Jul; 87():169-181. PubMed ID: 27212057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cognitive factors contribute to speech perception in cochlear-implant users and age-matched normal-hearing listeners under vocoded conditions.
O'Neill ER; Kreft HA; Oxenham AJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Jul; 146(1):195. PubMed ID: 31370651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Feasibility of real-time selection of frequency tables in an acoustic simulation of a cochlear implant.
Fitzgerald MB; Sagi E; Morbiwala TA; Tan CT; Svirsky MA
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(6):763-72. PubMed ID: 23807089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Linguistic Context Versus Semantic Competition in Word Recognition by Younger and Older Adults With Cochlear Implants.
Amichetti NM; Atagi E; Kong YY; Wingfield A
Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):101-109. PubMed ID: 28700448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Individual Differences in Lexical Access Among Cochlear Implant Users.
Nagels L; Bastiaanse R; Başkent D; Wagner A
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2020 Jan; 63(1):286-304. PubMed ID: 31855606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The Effect of Interaural Mismatches on Contralateral Unmasking With Single-Sided Vocoders.
Wess JM; Brungart DS; Bernstein JGW
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(3):374-386. PubMed ID: 28002083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
