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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35875863)

  • 1. Parameter tuning of time-frequency masking algorithms for reverberant artifact removal within the cochlear implant stimulus.
    Shahidi LK; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2022 Nov; 23(6):309-316. PubMed ID: 35875863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Objective intelligibility measurement of reverberant vocoded speech for normal-hearing listeners: Towards facilitating the development of speech enhancement algorithms for cochlear implants.
    Shahidi LK; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Mar; 155(3):2151-2168. PubMed ID: 38501923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The effects of reverberant self- and overlap-masking on speech recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
    Desmond JM; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jun; 135(6):EL304-10. PubMed ID: 24907838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Blind binary masking for reverberation suppression in cochlear implants.
    Hazrati O; Lee J; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1607-14. PubMed ID: 23464030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The impact of reverberant self-masking and overlap-masking effects on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners (L).
    Kokkinakis K; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1099-102. PubMed ID: 21895052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effects of early and late reflections on intelligibility of reverberated speech by cochlear implant listeners.
    Hu Y; Kokkinakis K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL22-8. PubMed ID: 24437852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Prior exposure to a reverberant listening environment improves speech intelligibility in adult cochlear implant listeners.
    Srinivasan NK; Tobey EA; Loizou PC
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2016; 17(2):98-104. PubMed ID: 26843090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of a spectral subtraction strategy to suppress reverberant energy in cochlear implant devices.
    Kokkinakis K; Runge C; Tahmina Q; Hu Y
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jul; 138(1):115-24. PubMed ID: 26233012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners.
    Hazrati O; Loizou PC
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 51(6):437-43. PubMed ID: 22356300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Effects of source-to-listener distance and masking on perception of cochlear implant processed speech in reverberant rooms.
    Whitmal NA; Poissant SF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):2556-69. PubMed ID: 19894835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Reverberation suppression in cochlear implants using a blind channel-selection strategy.
    Hazrati O; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4188-96. PubMed ID: 23742370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Cochlear implant speech intelligibility outcomes with structured and unstructured binary mask errors.
    Kressner AA; Westermann A; Buchholz JM; Rozell CJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):800-10. PubMed ID: 26936562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Two-microphone spatial filtering improves speech reception for cochlear-implant users in reverberant conditions with multiple noise sources.
    Goldsworthy RL
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25330772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Precedence based speech segregation in bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Hossain S; Montazeri V; Assmann PF; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):EL545-50. PubMed ID: 26723365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimized gain functions in ideal time-frequency masks and their application to dereverberation for cochlear implants.
    Kokkinakis K; Stohl JS
    JASA Express Lett; 2021 Aug; 1(8):084401. PubMed ID: 36154250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.