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 *

242 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33639827)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Within- and across-frequency temporal processing and speech perception in cochlear implant users.
    Blankenship CM; Meinzen-Derr J; Zhang F
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(10):e0275772. PubMed ID: 36227872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Mandarin Tone and Vowel Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Talker Variability and Bimodal Hearing.
    Chang YP; Chang RY; Lin CY; Luo X
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):271-81. PubMed ID: 26752089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Speech Segregation in Active Middle Ear Stimulation: Masking Release With Changing Fundamental Frequency.
    Auinger AB; Liepins R; Kaider A; Vyskocil E; Riss D; Arnoldner C
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(3):709-717. PubMed ID: 33369941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Memory Span for Spoken Digits in Adults With Cochlear Implants or Typical Hearing: Effects of Age and Identification Ability.
    Cleary M; Wilkinson T; Wilson L; Goupell MJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 61(8):2099-2114. PubMed ID: 30073267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Talker variability in word recognition under cochlear implant simulation: Does talker gender matter?
    Tamati TN; Sijp L; Başkent D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Apr; 147(4):EL370. PubMed ID: 32359292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Acoustic Hearing Can Interfere With Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear-Implant Speech Perception.
    Bernstein JGW; Stakhovskaya OA; Jensen KK; Goupell MJ
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(4):747-761. PubMed ID: 31584504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Music perception by cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners as measured by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia.
    Cooper WB; Tobey E; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2008 Aug; 29(4):618-26. PubMed ID: 18469714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. The effects of stimulus modality, task complexity, and cuing on working memory and the relationship with speech recognition in older cochlear implant users.
    Luo X; Azuma T; Kolberg C; Pulling KR
    J Commun Disord; 2022; 95():106170. PubMed ID: 34839068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Auditory cortical activity to different voice onset times in cochlear implant users.
    Han JH; Zhang F; Kadis DS; Houston LM; Samy RN; Smith ML; Dimitrijevic A
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2016 Feb; 127(2):1603-1617. PubMed ID: 26616545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Psychoacoustic abilities associated with music perception in cochlear implant users.
    Won JH; Drennan WR; Kang RS; Rubinstein JT
    Ear Hear; 2010 Dec; 31(6):796-805. PubMed ID: 20595901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: the role of spectral and temporal resolution.
    Fu QJ; Chinchilla S; Nogaki G; Galvin JJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Sep; 118(3 Pt 1):1711-8. PubMed ID: 16240829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Nelson PB; Jin SH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 May; 115(5 Pt 1):2286-94. PubMed ID: 15139640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The effect of different cochlear implant microphones on acoustic hearing individuals' binaural benefits for speech perception in noise.
    Aronoff JM; Freed DJ; Fisher LM; Pal I; Soli SD
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):468-84. PubMed ID: 21412155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Contralateral Interference Caused by Binaurally Presented Competing Speech in Adult Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.
    Goupell MJ; Stakhovskaya OA; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):110-123. PubMed ID: 28787316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.