219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32320925)
1. The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.
Lamping W; Goehring T; Marozeau J; Carlyon RP
Hear Res; 2020 Jun; 391():107969. PubMed ID: 32320925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Formant frequency discrimination with a fine structure sound coding strategy for cochlear implants.
Liepins R; Kaider A; Honeder C; Auinger AB; Dahm V; Riss D; Arnoldner C
Hear Res; 2020 Jul; 392():107970. PubMed ID: 32339775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing.
Oxenham AJ; Kreft HA
Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of two channel selection criteria for noise suppression in cochlear implants.
Hazrati O; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1615-24. PubMed ID: 23464031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.
Dorman MF; Cook S; Spahr A; Zhang T; Loiselle L; Schramm D; Whittingham J; Gifford R
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():107-11. PubMed ID: 25285624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Spectral contrast enhancement improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implants.
Nogueira W; Rode T; Büchner A
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):728-39. PubMed ID: 26936556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.
Srinivasan AG; Padilla M; Shannon RV; Landsberger DM
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():29-36. PubMed ID: 23467170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Simultaneous suppression of noise and reverberation in cochlear implants using a ratio masking strategy.
Hazrati O; Sadjadi SO; Loizou PC; Hansen JH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):3759-65. PubMed ID: 24180786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Factors influencing speech perception in noise for 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants.
Ching TY; Zhang VW; Flynn C; Burns L; Button L; Hou S; McGhie K; Van Buynder P
Int J Audiol; 2018 May; 57(sup2):S70-S80. PubMed ID: 28687057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Optimising the effect of noise reduction algorithm ClearVoice in cochlear implant users by increasing the maximum comfort levels.
Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):230-235. PubMed ID: 29065731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
