186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36462377)
1. Differences in neural encoding of speech in noise between cochlear implant users with and without preserved acoustic hearing.
Shim H; Kim S; Hong J; Na Y; Woo J; Hansen M; Gantz B; Choi I
Hear Res; 2023 Jan; 427():108649. PubMed ID: 36462377
[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. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing.
Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
Ear Hear; 2022; 43(2):631-645. PubMed ID: 34593687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Pre- and Postoperative Binaural Unmasking for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.
Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JGW
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):554-567. PubMed ID: 28301390
[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. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
Gifford RH; Stecker GC
Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Speech masking release in Hybrid cochlear implant users: Roles of spectral and temporal cues in electric-acoustic hearing.
Tejani VD; Brown CJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 May; 147(5):3667. PubMed ID: 32486815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Speech perception with electric-acoustic stimulation : Comparison with bilateral cochlear implant users in different noise conditions].
Rader T
HNO; 2015 Feb; 63(2):85-93. PubMed ID: 25515123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Event-related potentials for better speech perception in noise by cochlear implant users.
Soshi T; Hisanaga S; Kodama N; Kanekama Y; Samejima Y; Yumoto E; Sekiyama K
Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 316():110-21. PubMed ID: 25158303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Electric-Acoustic Stimulation After Reimplantation: Hearing Preservation and Speech Perception.
Thompson NJ; Dillon MT; Bucker AL; King ER; Pillsbury HC; Brown KD
Otol Neurotol; 2019 Feb; 40(2):e94-e98. PubMed ID: 30624400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Audiological and Demographic Factors that Impact the Precision of Speech Categorization in Cochlear Implant Users.
Colby S; Seedorff M; McMurray B
Ear Hear; 2023 May-Jun 01; 44(3):572-587. PubMed ID: 36542839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Speech Perception With Combined Electric-Acoustic Stimulation: A Simulation and Model Comparison.
Rader T; Adel Y; Fastl H; Baumann U
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):e314-25. PubMed ID: 25989069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.
Gifford RH; Davis TJ; Sunderhaus LW; Menapace C; Buck B; Crosson J; O'Neill L; Beiter A; Segel P
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):539-553. PubMed ID: 28301392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Cochlear implant spectral bandwidth for optimizing electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS).
Gifford RH; Sunderhaus LW; Dawant BM; Labadie RF; Noble JH
Hear Res; 2022 Dec; 426():108584. PubMed ID: 35985964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of hearing aid settings for electric-acoustic stimulation.
Dillon MT; Buss E; Pillsbury HC; Adunka OF; Buchman CA; Adunka MC
J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):133-40. PubMed ID: 24828214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Incidence of Cochlear Implant Electrode Contacts in the Functional Acoustic Hearing Region and the Influence on Speech Recognition with Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
Nix EP; Thompson NJ; Brown KD; Dedmon MM; Selleck AM; Overton AB; Canfarotta MW; Dillon MT
Otol Neurotol; 2023 Dec; 44(10):1004-1010. PubMed ID: 37758328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessing the Quality of Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing: Implications for Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation With Cochlear Implants.
Spitzer ER; Landsberger DM; Friedmann DR
Ear Hear; 2021; 42(2):475-486. PubMed ID: 32976249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Potential Benefits of an Integrated Electric-Acoustic Sound Processor with Children: A Preliminary Report.
Wolfe J; Neumann S; Schafer E; Marsh M; Wood M; Baker RS
J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Feb; 28(2):127-140. PubMed ID: 28240980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
