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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9562538)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. The identification of speech in noise by cochlear implant patients and normal-hearing listeners using 6-channel signal processors.
    Dorman MF; Loizou PC; Fitzke J
    Ear Hear; 1998 Dec; 19(6):481-4. PubMed ID: 9867296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants.
    Dorman MF; Loizou PC
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S113-4. PubMed ID: 9391623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Recognition of spectrally asynchronous speech by normal-hearing listeners and Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.
    Fu QJ; Galvin JJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Mar; 109(3):1166-72. PubMed ID: 11303930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Speech recognition by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners as a function of intensity resolution.
    Loizou PC; Dorman M; Poroy O; Spahr T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Nov; 108(5 Pt 1):2377-87. PubMed ID: 11108378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
    Zeng FG; Galvin JJ
    Ear Hear; 1999 Feb; 20(1):60-74. PubMed ID: 10037066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Enhancing the speech envelope of continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants.
    Geurts L; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Apr; 105(4):2476-84. PubMed ID: 10212428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Within-patient longitudinal speech reception measures with continuous interleaved sampling processors for ineraid implanted subjects.
    Pelizzone M; Cosendai G; Tinembart J
    Ear Hear; 1999 Jun; 20(3):228-37. PubMed ID: 10386849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Frequency mapping in cochlear implants.
    Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):339-48. PubMed ID: 12195176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Improving consonant intelligibility for Ineraid patients fit with continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) processors by enhancing contrast among channel outputs.
    Dorman MF; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 1996 Aug; 17(4):308-13. PubMed ID: 8862968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.
    Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    Ear Hear; 1999 Aug; 20(4):321-31. PubMed ID: 10466568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The recognition of vowels produced by men, women, boys, and girls by cochlear implant patients using a six-channel CIS processor.
    Loizou PC; Dorman MF; Powell V
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Feb; 103(2):1141-9. PubMed ID: 9479767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Cruz RJ
    Audiol Neurootol; 2005; 10(3):169-84. PubMed ID: 15724088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants.
    Geurts L; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Feb; 109(2):713-26. PubMed ID: 11248975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor.
    Fishman KE; Shannon RV; Slattery WH
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1997 Oct; 40(5):1201-15. PubMed ID: 9328890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study.
    Mens LH; Berenstein CK
    Otol Neurotol; 2005 Sep; 26(5):957-64. PubMed ID: 16151343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.