898 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32182551)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Binaural interference with simulated electric acoustic stimulation.
van Ginkel C; Gifford RH; Stecker GC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Apr; 145(4):2445. PubMed ID: 31046315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments.
Gifford RH; Dorman MF; Skarzynski H; Lorens A; Polak M; Driscoll CL; Roland P; Buchman CA
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):413-25. PubMed ID: 23446225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1246. PubMed ID: 25190398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Perception and coding of interaural time differences with bilateral cochlear implants.
Laback B; Egger K; Majdak P
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():138-50. PubMed ID: 25456088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) in Children: Investigating Benefit Afforded by Bilateral Versus Unilateral Acoustic Hearing.
Roberts JB; Stecker GC; Holder JT; Gifford RH
Otol Neurotol; 2021 Aug; 42(7):e836-e843. PubMed ID: 33859136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Pre- and Postoperative Binaural Unmasking for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.
Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JGW
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):554-567. PubMed ID: 28301390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results.
Laszig R; Aschendorff A; Stecker M; Müller-Deile J; Maune S; Dillier N; Weber B; Hey M; Begall K; Lenarz T; Battmer RD; Böhm M; Steffens T; Strutz J; Linder T; Probst R; Allum J; Westhofen M; Doering W
Otol Neurotol; 2004 Nov; 25(6):958-68. PubMed ID: 15547426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users.
Yoon YS; Li Y; Kang HY; Fu QJ
Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):554-65. PubMed ID: 21696329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Differences in the temporal course of interaural time difference sensitivity between acoustic and electric hearing in amplitude modulated stimuli.
Hu H; Ewert SD; McAlpine D; Dietz M
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1862. PubMed ID: 28372072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Binaural model-based dynamic-range compression.
Ernst SMA; Kortlang S; Grimm G; Bisitz T; Kollmeier B; Ewert SD
Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S31-S42. PubMed ID: 29373937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
