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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38501923)

  • 21. Effect of Noise Reduction Gain Errors on Simulated Cochlear Implant Speech Intelligibility.
    Kressner AA; May T; Dau T
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519825930. PubMed ID: 30755108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Binaural Speech Understanding With Bilateral Cochlear Implants in Reverberation.
    Kokkinakis K
    Am J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 27(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 29279894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Experimental Investigation of Acoustic Features to Optimize Intelligibility in Cochlear Implants.
    Henry F; Parsi A; Glavin M; Jones E
    Sensors (Basel); 2023 Aug; 23(17):. PubMed ID: 37688009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Speech enhancement based on neural networks improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implant users.
    Goehring T; Bolner F; Monaghan JJ; van Dijk B; Zarowski A; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():183-194. PubMed ID: 27913315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Perception of speech produced by native and nonnative talkers by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with cochlear implants.
    Ji C; Galvin JJ; Chang YP; Xu A; Fu QJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 57(2):532-54. PubMed ID: 24686901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Music Is More Enjoyable With Two Ears, Even If One of Them Receives a Degraded Signal Provided By a Cochlear Implant.
    Landsberger DM; Vermeire K; Stupak N; Lavender A; Neukam J; Van de Heyning P; Svirsky MA
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(3):476-490. PubMed ID: 31469701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. [On the effect of reverberation on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners].
    Mühler R; Ziese M; Rostalski D; Verhey JL
    HNO; 2014 Jan; 62(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 24270967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Spectral contrast enhancement improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implants.
    Nogueira W; Rode T; Büchner A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):728-39. PubMed ID: 26936556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Efficient Adaptive Speech Reception Threshold Measurements Using Stochastic Approximation Algorithms.
    Dingemanse G; Goedegebure A
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216520919199. PubMed ID: 32425135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
    Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effect of noise and reverberation on speech intelligibility for cochlear implant recipients in realistic sound environments.
    Badajoz-Davila J; Buchholz JM; Van-Hoesel R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 May; 147(5):3538. PubMed ID: 32486825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise.
    Pals C; Sarampalis A; van Dijk M; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 29757801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. A convolutional neural network-based framework for analysis and assessment of non-linguistic sound classification and enhancement for normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
    Shekar RCMC; Hansen JHL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Nov; 152(5):2720. PubMed ID: 36456299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Impact of room acoustic parameters on speech and music perception among participants with cochlear implants.
    Eurich B; Klenzner T; Oehler M
    Hear Res; 2019 Jun; 377():122-132. PubMed ID: 30933704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.