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 *

169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38501923)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Recovering speech intelligibility with deep learning and multiple microphones in noisy-reverberant situations for people using cochlear implants.
    Gaultier C; Goehring T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Jun; 155(6):3833-3847. PubMed ID: 38884525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Predicting the intelligibility of vocoded speech.
    Chen F; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):331-8. PubMed ID: 21206363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. USING MACHINE LEARNING TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF REVERBERATION AND NOISE IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTS.
    Chu KM; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
    Proc Meet Acoust; 2018 May; 33(1):. PubMed ID: 32582407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Interactions Between Digital Noise Reduction and Reverberation: Acoustic and Behavioral Effects.
    Reinhart P; Zahorik P; Souza P
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Jan; 31(1):17-29. PubMed ID: 31267958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A deep learning based segregation algorithm to increase speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners in reverberant-noisy conditions.
    Zhao Y; Wang D; Johnson EM; Healy EW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Sep; 144(3):1627. PubMed ID: 30424625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. USING AUTOMATIC SPEECH RECOGNITION AND SPEECH SYNTHESIS TO IMPROVE THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF COCHLEAR IMPLANT USERS IN REVERBERANT LISTENING ENVIRONMENTS.
    Chu K; Collins L; Mainsah B
    Proc IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Process; 2020 May; 2020():6929-6933. PubMed ID: 33078056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effects of Lombard perturbation on speech intelligibility in noise for normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
    Saba JN; Hansen JHL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Feb; 151(2):1007. PubMed ID: 35232065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.