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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

1228 related items for PubMed ID: 11519582

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 3. 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
    [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 Dec; 46(5-6):449-64. PubMed ID: 24157128
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.
    Goldsworthy RL, Delhorne LA, Braida LD, Reed CM.
    Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):27-44. PubMed ID: 23429419
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners.
    Donaldson GS, Allen SL.
    Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):392-405. PubMed ID: 14534410
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss.
    Smith SL, Pichora-Fuller MK, Wilson RH, Macdonald EN.
    Ear Hear; 2012 Oct; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. The effect of reducing the number of electrodes on spatial hearing tasks for bilateral cochlear implant recipients.
    Perreau A, Tyler RS, Witt SA.
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2010 Feb; 21(2):110-20. PubMed ID: 20166312
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Speech recognition in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss as a function of the number of spectral channels.
    Başkent D.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Nov; 120(5 Pt 1):2908-25. PubMed ID: 17139748
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Recognition of time-distorted sentences by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Fu QJ, Galvin JJ, Wang X.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Jan; 109(1):379-84. PubMed ID: 11206166
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Effects of electrode deactivation on speech recognition in multichannel cochlear implant recipients.
    Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Zwolan TA, Pfingst BE.
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2017 Nov; 18(6):324-334. PubMed ID: 28793847
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion.
    Baskent D, Shannon RV.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2064-76. PubMed ID: 12703717
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices.
    Spahr AJ, Dorman MF.
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):624-8. PubMed ID: 15148187
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.
    Fu QJ, Nogaki G.
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2005 Mar; 6(1):19-27. PubMed ID: 15735937
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor.
    Loizou PC, Stickney G, Mishra L, Assmann P.
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):12-9. PubMed ID: 12598809
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. List equivalency of the AzBio sentence test in noise for listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity or cochlear implants.
    Schafer EC, Pogue J, Milrany T.
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 Feb; 23(7):501-9. PubMed ID: 22992257
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Lexical tone identification and consonant recognition in acoustic simulations of cochlear implants.
    Lin YS, Lu HP, Hung SC, Chang CP.
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2009 Jun; 129(6):630-7. PubMed ID: 19444660
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 62.