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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3624639)

  • 1. Acoustic parameters measured by a formant-estimating speech processor for a multiple-channel cochlear implant.
    Blamey PJ; Dowell RC; Clark GM; Seligman PM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1987 Jul; 82(1):38-47. PubMed ID: 3624639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Vowel and consonant recognition of cochlear implant patients using formant-estimating speech processors.
    Blamey PJ; Dowell RC; Brown AM; Clark GM; Seligman PM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1987 Jul; 82(1):48-57. PubMed ID: 3624640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.
    Donaldson GS; Kreft HA
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):658-77. PubMed ID: 17086077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing.
    Fu QJ; Shannon RV; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Dec; 104(6):3586-96. PubMed ID: 9857517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.
    Sagi E; Svirsky MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Feb; 141(2):1027. PubMed ID: 28253672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Saliency of Vowel Features in Neural Responses of Cochlear Implant Users.
    Prévost F; Lehmann A
    Clin EEG Neurosci; 2018 Nov; 49(6):388-397. PubMed ID: 29690785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Phoneme recognition by deaf individuals using the multichannel nucleus cochlear implant.
    Mülder HE; Van Olphen AF; Bosman A; Smoorenburg GF
    Acta Otolaryngol; 1992 Nov; 112(6):946-55. PubMed ID: 1481665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Phonemic information transmitted by a multichannel electrotactile speech processor.
    Blamey PJ; Cowan RS; Alcantara JI; Clark GM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1988 Dec; 31(4):620-9. PubMed ID: 3230892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Synthetic vowel studies on cochlear implant patients.
    Tong YC; Lim HH; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1988 Sep; 84(3):876-87. PubMed ID: 3183206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Place coding of vowel formants for cochlear implant patients.
    Blamey PJ; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Aug; 88(2):667-73. PubMed ID: 2212290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A signal processor for a multiple-electrode hearing prosthesis.
    Seligman PM; Patrick JF; Tong YC; Clark GM; Dowell RC; Crosby PA
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1984; 411():135-9. PubMed ID: 6596837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels.
    Dorman MF; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 1998 Apr; 19(2):162-6. PubMed ID: 9562538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition.
    Boothroyd A; Mulhearn B; Gong J; Ostroff J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1996 Sep; 100(3):1807-18. PubMed ID: 8817914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Acoustic characteristics of fricatives, amplitude of formants and clarity of speech produced without and with a medical mask.
    Nguyen DD; Chacon A; Payten C; Black R; Sheth M; McCabe P; Novakovic D; Madill C
    Int J Lang Commun Disord; 2022 Mar; 57(2):366-380. PubMed ID: 35166414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Hearing impairment and vowel production. A comparison between normally hearing, hearing-aided and cochlear implanted Dutch children.
    Verhoeven J; Hide O; De Maeyer S; Gillis S; Gillis S
    J Commun Disord; 2016; 59():24-39. PubMed ID: 26629749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Vowel recognition via cochlear implants and noise vocoders: effects of formant movement and duration.
    Iverson P; Smith CA; Evans BG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Dec; 120(6):3998-4006. PubMed ID: 17225426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of speech perception of cochlear implantees using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the MSP (MULTIPEAK) processor.
    McKay CM; McDermott HJ; Vandali AE; Clark GM
    Acta Otolaryngol; 1992 Sep; 112(5):752-61. PubMed ID: 1456029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
    Loizou PC; Poroy O
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Sep; 110(3 Pt 1):1619-27. PubMed ID: 11572371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech coding in the auditory nerve: V. Vowels in background noise.
    Delgutte B; Kiang NY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1984 Mar; 75(3):908-18. PubMed ID: 6707320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.