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.
2. Investigation into the applicability and optimization of the Dutch matrix sentence test for use with cochlear implant users. Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Houben R; Dreschler WA Int J Audiol; 2014 Nov; 53(11):817-28. PubMed ID: 24975235 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Adaptation of scoring methods for testing cochlear implant users using the Cantonese Hearing In Noise Test (CHINT). Wong LL; Keung SK Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):630-6. PubMed ID: 23632972 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessing speech recognition abilities with digits in noise in cochlear implant and hearing aid users. Kaandorp MW; Smits C; Merkus P; Goverts ST; Festen JM Int J Audiol; 2015 Jan; 54(1):48-57. PubMed ID: 25156097 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The Important Role of Contextual Information in Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Its Consequences in Speech Tests. Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519838672. PubMed ID: 30991904 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Investigation of a matrix sentence test in noise: reproducibility and discrimination function in cochlear implant patients. Hey M; Hocke T; Hedderich J; Müller-Deile J Int J Audiol; 2014 Dec; 53(12):895-902. PubMed ID: 25140602 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Ideal time-frequency masking algorithms lead to different speech intelligibility and quality in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners. Koning R; Madhu N; Wouters J IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2015 Jan; 62(1):331-41. PubMed ID: 25167542 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Perception of speech produced by native and nonnative talkers by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with cochlear implants. Ji C; Galvin JJ; Chang YP; Xu A; Fu QJ J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 57(2):532-54. PubMed ID: 24686901 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Characteristics and international comparability of the Finnish matrix sentence test in cochlear implant recipients. Dietz A; Buschermöhle M; Sivonen V; Willberg T; Aarnisalo AA; Lenarz T; Kollmeier B Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():80-7. PubMed ID: 26364512 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech: Cochlear Implant Users and Normal Hearing Listeners. Bhargava P; Gaudrain E; Başkent D J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Oct; 17(5):475-91. PubMed ID: 27090115 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. On the relationship between auditory cognition and speech intelligibility in cochlear implant users: An ERP study. Finke M; Büchner A; Ruigendijk E; Meyer M; Sandmann P Neuropsychologia; 2016 Jul; 87():169-181. PubMed ID: 27212057 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m). Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]