306 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30444843)
41. Amplitude Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition in Late-Implanted Prelingually and Postlingually Deafened Cochlear Implant Users.
De Ruiter AM; Debruyne JA; Chenault MN; Francart T; Brokx JP
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(5):557-66. PubMed ID: 25851075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. 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]
43. Neural Correlates of Individual Differences in Speech-in-Noise Performance in a Large Cohort of Cochlear Implant Users.
Berger JI; Gander PE; Kim S; Schwalje AT; Woo J; Na YM; Holmes A; Hong JM; Dunn CC; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; McMurray B; Griffiths TD; Choi I
Ear Hear; 2023 Sep-Oct 01; 44(5):1107-1120. PubMed ID: 37144890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Perception of Child-Directed Versus Adult-Directed Emotional Speech in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users.
Barrett KC; Chatterjee M; Caldwell MT; Deroche MLD; Jiradejvong P; Kulkarni AM; Limb CJ
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1372-1382. PubMed ID: 32149924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Effect of speaking rate on recognition of synthetic and natural speech by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
Ji C; Galvin JJ; Xu A; Fu QJ
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):313-23. PubMed ID: 23238527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Contribution of Verbal Learning & Memory and Spectro-Temporal Discrimination to Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.
Harris MS; Hamel BL; Wichert K; Kozlowski K; Mleziva S; Ray C; Pisoni DB; Kronenberger WG; Moberly AC
Laryngoscope; 2023 Mar; 133(3):661-669. PubMed ID: 35567421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Preoperative Reading Efficiency as a Predictor of Adult Cochlear Implant Outcomes.
Moberly AC; Afreen H; Schneider KJ; Tamati TN
Otol Neurotol; 2022 Dec; 43(10):e1100-e1106. PubMed ID: 36351224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Non-auditory neurocognitive skills contribute to speech recognition in adults with cochlear implants.
Moberly AC; Houston DM; Castellanos I
Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol; 2016 Dec; 1(6):154-162. PubMed ID: 28660253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Electrical dynamic range is only weakly associated with auditory performance and speech recognition in long-term users of cochlear implants.
Kim SY; Jeon SK; Oh SH; Lee JH; Suh MW; Lee SY; Lim HJ; Park MK
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2018 Aug; 111():170-173. PubMed ID: 29958604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. 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]
51. Vocal emotion recognition performance predicts the quality of life in adult cochlear implant users.
Luo X; Kern A; Pulling KR
J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Nov; 144(5):EL429. PubMed ID: 30522282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. 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]
53. Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deaf Adults is Time-sensitive Towards Positive Outcome: Prediction using Advanced Machine Learning Techniques.
Kim H; Kang WS; Park HJ; Lee JY; Park JW; Kim Y; Seo JW; Kwak MY; Kang BC; Yang CJ; Duffy BA; Cho YS; Lee SY; Suh MW; Moon IJ; Ahn JH; Cho YS; Oh SH; Chung JW
Sci Rep; 2018 Dec; 8(1):18004. PubMed ID: 30573747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Auditory cortical activity to different voice onset times in cochlear implant users.
Han JH; Zhang F; Kadis DS; Houston LM; Samy RN; Smith ML; Dimitrijevic A
Clin Neurophysiol; 2016 Feb; 127(2):1603-1617. PubMed ID: 26616545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Verbal Learning and Memory After Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deaf Adults: Some New Findings with the CVLT-II.
Pisoni DB; Broadstock A; Wucinich T; Safdar N; Miller K; Hernandez LR; Vasil K; Boyce L; Davies A; Harris MS; Castellanos I; Xu H; Kronenberger WG; Moberly AC
Ear Hear; 2018; 39(4):720-745. PubMed ID: 29271831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. 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]
57. Cochlear implantation in late-implanted prelingually deafened adults: changes in quality of life.
Straatman LV; Huinck WJ; Langereis MC; Snik AF; Mulder JJ
Otol Neurotol; 2014 Feb; 35(2):253-9. PubMed ID: 24448285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Speech perception scores in cochlear implant recipients: An analysis of ceiling effects in the CUNY sentence test (Quiet) in post-lingually deafened cochlear implant recipients.
Ebrahimi-Madiseh A; Eikelboom RH; Jayakody DM; Atlas MD
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016; 17(2):75-80. PubMed ID: 26841858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Lexical-Access Ability and Cognitive Predictors of Speech Recognition in Noise in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.
Kaandorp MW; Smits C; Merkus P; Festen JM; Goverts ST
Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517743887. PubMed ID: 29205095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Sentence Recognition in Quiet and Noise by Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users: Relationships to Spoken Language.
Eisenberg LS; Fisher LM; Johnson KC; Ganguly DH; Grace T; Niparko JK;
Otol Neurotol; 2016 Feb; 37(2):e75-81. PubMed ID: 26756159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
