205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30261772)
1. 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]
2. The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.
Brochier T; McDermott HJ; McKay CM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4097. PubMed ID: 28618807
[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. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
[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. The effects of reverberant self- and overlap-masking on speech recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
Desmond JM; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jun; 135(6):EL304-10. PubMed ID: 24907838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants.
Ali H; Hazrati O; Tobey EA; Hansen JH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):EL242. PubMed ID: 25190428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.
Sagi E; Svirsky MA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Feb; 141(2):1027. PubMed ID: 28253672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Rate and onset cues can improve cochlear implant synthetic vowel recognition in noise.
Mc Laughlin M; Reilly RB; Zeng FG
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1546-60. PubMed ID: 23464025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients.
Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients.
Vroegop JL; Homans NC; Goedegebure A; van der Schroeff MP
Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):858-863. PubMed ID: 30261771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners.
Hazrati O; Loizou PC
Int J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 51(6):437-43. PubMed ID: 22356300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
