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 *

287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32251011)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Vocoder simulations of highly focused cochlear stimulation with limited dynamic range and discriminable steps.
    Stafford RC; Stafford JW; Wells JD; Loizou PC; Keller MD
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):262-70. PubMed ID: 24322978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Perception of musical timbre by cochlear implant listeners: a multidimensional scaling study.
    Macherey O; Delpierre A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):426-36. PubMed ID: 23334356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Accuracy and cue use in word segmentation for cochlear-implant listeners and normal-hearing listeners presented vocoded speech.
    Heffner CC; Jaekel BN; Newman RS; Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Oct; 150(4):2936. PubMed ID: 34717484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Cross-frequency integration for consonant and vowel identification in bimodal hearing.
    Kong YY; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2011 Jun; 54(3):959-80. PubMed ID: 21060139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Prosody perception and production by children with cochlear implants.
    VAN DE Velde DJ; Schiller NO; Levelt CC; VAN Heuven VJ; Beers M; Briaire JJ; Frijns JHM
    J Child Lang; 2019 Jan; 46(1):111-141. PubMed ID: 30334510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effect of speech degradation on top-down repair: phonemic restoration with simulations of cochlear implants and combined electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Başkent D
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2012 Oct; 13(5):683-92. PubMed ID: 22569838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Speech prosody perception in cochlear implant users with and without residual hearing.
    Marx M; James C; Foxton J; Capber A; Fraysse B; Barone P; Deguine O
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(2):239-48. PubMed ID: 25303861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Communicating Emotion: Vocal Expression of Linguistic and Emotional Prosody in Children With Mild to Profound Hearing Loss Compared With That of Normal Hearing Peers.
    de Jong TJ; Hakkesteegt MM; van der Schroeff MP; Vroegop JL
    Ear Hear; 2024 Jan-Feb 01; 45(1):72-80. PubMed ID: 37316994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Voice Discrimination in Quiet and in Background Noise by Simulated and Real Cochlear Implant Users.
    Levin M; Zaltz Y
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2023 Dec; 66(12):5169-5186. PubMed ID: 37992412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Sequential stream segregation in normally-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Tejani VD; Schvartz-Leyzac KC; Chatterjee M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jan; 141(1):50. PubMed ID: 28147600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of spectral resolution on spectral contrast effects in cochlear-implant users.
    Feng L; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jun; 143(6):EL468. PubMed ID: 29960500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Reducing Simulated Channel Interaction Reveals Differences in Phoneme Identification Between Children and Adults With Normal Hearing.
    Jahn KN; DiNino M; Arenberg JG
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(2):295-311. PubMed ID: 29927780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Effects of envelope-vocoder processing on F0 discrimination and concurrent-vowel identification.
    Qin MK; Oxenham AJ
    Ear Hear; 2005 Oct; 26(5):451-60. PubMed ID: 16230895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Sound Localization in Real-Time Vocoded Cochlear-Implant Simulations With Normal-Hearing Listeners.
    Ausili SA; Backus B; Agterberg MJH; van Opstal AJ; van Wanrooij MM
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519847332. PubMed ID: 31088265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Recognition of Accented Speech by Cochlear-Implant Listeners: Benefit of Audiovisual Cues.
    Waddington E; Jaekel BN; Tinnemore AR; Gordon-Salant S; Goupell MJ
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1236-1250. PubMed ID: 32069269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.