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

583 related items for PubMed ID: 15376674

  • 1. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers.
    Stickney GS, Zeng FG, Litovsky R, Assmann P.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Aug; 116(2):1081-91. PubMed ID: 15376674
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Speech Understanding With Various Maskers in Cochlear-Implant and Simulated Cochlear-Implant Hearing: Effects of Spectral Resolution and Implications for Masking Release.
    Croghan NBH, Smith ZM.
    Trends Hear; 2018 Aug; 22():2331216518787276. PubMed ID: 30022730
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects.
    Cullington HE, Zeng FG.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Jan; 123(1):450-61. PubMed ID: 18177173
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Effectiveness of Two-Talker Maskers That Differ in Talker Congruity and Perceptual Similarity to the Target Speech.
    Calandruccio L, Buss E, Bowdrie K.
    Trends Hear; 2017 Jan; 21():2331216517709385. PubMed ID: 29169315
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Nelson PB, Jin SH, Carney AE, Nelson DA.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Feb; 113(2):961-8. PubMed ID: 12597189
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Effect of priming on energetic and informational masking in a same-different task.
    Jones JA, Freyman RL.
    Ear Hear; 2012 Feb; 33(1):124-33. PubMed ID: 21841488
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level.
    Summers V, Molis MR.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Apr; 47(2):245-56. PubMed ID: 15157127
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Nelson PB, Jin SH.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 May; 115(5 Pt 1):2286-94. PubMed ID: 15139640
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Effects of Spectral Resolution and Frequency Mismatch on Speech Understanding and Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Bilateral Cochlear Implants.
    Xu K, Willis S, Gopen Q, Fu QJ.
    Ear Hear; 2020 May; 41(5):1362-1371. PubMed ID: 32132377
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Masking release and modulation interference in cochlear implant and simulation listeners.
    Jin SH, Nie Y, Nelson P.
    Am J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 22(1):135-46. PubMed ID: 23800809
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Release from informational masking in a monaural competing-speech task with vocoded copies of the maskers presented contralaterally.
    Bernstein JG, Iyer N, Brungart DS.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):702-13. PubMed ID: 25698005
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition.
    Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 May; 115(5 Pt 1):2246-56. PubMed ID: 15139635
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Interaural level differences do not suffice for restoring spatial release from masking in simulated cochlear implant listening.
    Ihlefeld A, Litovsky RY.
    PLoS One; 2012 May; 7(9):e45296. PubMed ID: 23028914
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Speech Recognition With Informational and Energetic Maskers in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness After Cochlear Implantation.
    Müller V, Lang-Roth R.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2021 Aug 09; 64(8):3343-3356. PubMed ID: 34310192
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations.
    Poissant SF, Whitmal NA, Freyman RL.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Mar 09; 119(3):1606-15. PubMed ID: 16583905
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Masked Speech Perception Thresholds in Infants, Children, and Adults.
    Leibold LJ, Yarnell Bonino A, Buss E.
    Ear Hear; 2016 Mar 09; 37(3):345-53. PubMed ID: 26783855
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Cochlear Implant Facilitates the Use of Talker Sex and Spatial Cues to Segregate Competing Speech in Unilaterally Deaf Listeners.
    Chen J, Shi Y, Kong Y, Chen B, Zhang L, Galvin JJ, Li Y, Fu QJ.
    Ear Hear; 2016 Mar 09; 44(1):77-91. PubMed ID: 35733275
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers.
    Qin MK, Oxenham AJ.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Jul 09; 114(1):446-54. PubMed ID: 12880055
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech for native and nonnative english speakers.
    Calandruccio L, Bradlow AR, Dhar S.
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Apr 09; 25(4):355-66. PubMed ID: 25126683
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 30.