These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31795696)

  • 1. Lexical bias in word recognition by cochlear implant listeners.
    Gianakas SP; Winn MB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Nov; 146(5):3373. PubMed ID: 31795696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The use of acoustic cues for phonetic identification: effects of spectral degradation and electric hearing.
    Winn MB; Chatterjee M; Idsardi WJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Feb; 131(2):1465-79. PubMed ID: 22352517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Individual Variability in Recalibrating to Spectrally Shifted Speech: Implications for Cochlear Implants.
    Smith ML; Winn MB
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(5):1412-1427. PubMed ID: 33795617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.
    Winn MB; Won JH; Moon IJ
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(6):e377-e390. PubMed ID: 27438871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Using speech sounds to test functional spectral resolution in listeners with cochlear implants.
    Winn MB; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1430-42. PubMed ID: 25786954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Timbre and speech perception in bimodal and bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.
    Kong YY; Mullangi A; Marozeau J
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):645-59. PubMed ID: 22677814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise.
    Van Zyl M; Hanekom JJ
    J Commun Disord; 2013; 46(5-6):449-64. PubMed ID: 24157128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of cooperating and conflicting cues on speech intonation recognition by cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners.
    Peng SC; Lu N; Chatterjee M
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14(5):327-37. PubMed ID: 19372651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Discriminability and Perceptual Saliency of Temporal and Spectral Cues for Final Fricative Consonant Voicing in Simulated Cochlear-Implant and Bimodal Hearing.
    Kong YY; Winn MB; Poellmann K; Donaldson GS
    Trends Hear; 2016 Jun; 20():. PubMed ID: 27317666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing?
    Moberly AC; Lowenstein JH; Tarr E; Caldwell-Tarr A; Welling DB; Shahin AJ; Nittrouer S
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 57(2):566-82. PubMed ID: 24686722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Effect of Residual Acoustic Hearing and Adaptation to Uncertainty on Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence From Eye-Tracking.
    McMurray B; Farris-Trimble A; Seedorff M; Rigler H
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(1):e37-51. PubMed ID: 26317298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Making Sense of Sentences: Top-Down Processing of Speech by Adult Cochlear Implant Users.
    Moberly AC; Reed J
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2019 Aug; 62(8):2895-2905. PubMed ID: 31330118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Low-frequency fine-structure cues allow for the online use of lexical stress during spoken-word recognition in spectrally degraded speech.
    Kong YY; Jesse A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jan; 141(1):373. PubMed ID: 28147573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Weighting of cues for fricative place of articulation perception by children wearing cochlear implants.
    Hedrick M; Bahng J; von Hapsburg D; Younger MS
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):540-7. PubMed ID: 21604957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Perceptual Discrimination of Speaking Style Under Cochlear Implant Simulation.
    Tamati TN; Janse E; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):63-76. PubMed ID: 29742545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Recognition of emotional prosody by Mandarin-speaking adults with cochlear implants.
    Pak CL; Katz WF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Aug; 146(2):EL165. PubMed ID: 31472572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.