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

139 related items for PubMed ID: 20707456

  • 1. Simulations of cochlear-implant speech perception in modulated and unmodulated noise.
    Ihlefeld A, Deeks JM, Axon PR, Carlyon RP.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Aug; 128(2):870-80. PubMed ID: 20707456
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comodulation masking release in speech identification with real and simulated cochlear-implant hearing.
    Ihlefeld A, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Carlyon RP.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Feb; 131(2):1315-24. PubMed ID: 22352505
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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 Feb; 41(5):1362-1371. PubMed ID: 32132377
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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]

  • 5. 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]

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

  • 7. 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]

  • 8. Acoustic Hearing Can Interfere With Single-Sided Deafness Cochlear-Implant Speech Perception.
    Bernstein JGW, Stakhovskaya OA, Jensen KK, Goupell MJ.
    Ear Hear; 2020 Feb; 41(4):747-761. PubMed ID: 31584504
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. The Effect of Interaural Mismatches on Contralateral Unmasking With Single-Sided Vocoders.
    Wess JM, Brungart DS, Bernstein JGW.
    Ear Hear; 2017 Feb; 38(3):374-386. PubMed ID: 28002083
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Effects of better-ear glimpsing, binaural unmasking, and spectral resolution on spatial release from masking in cochlear-implant users.
    Gibbs BE, Bernstein JGW, Brungart DS, Goupell MJ.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Aug; 152(2):1230. PubMed ID: 36050186
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Infants' detection and discrimination of sounds in modulated maskers.
    Werner LA.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4156-67. PubMed ID: 23742367
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T, Fastl H, Baumann U.
    Ear Hear; 2013 Jun; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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]

  • 14. Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Kwon BJ, Perry TT, Wilhelm CL, Healy EW.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Apr; 131(4):3111-9. PubMed ID: 22501084
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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 Apr; 32(4):468-84. PubMed ID: 21412155
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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]

  • 17. 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]

  • 18. Head shadow enhancement with low-frequency beamforming improves sound localization and speech perception for simulated bimodal listeners.
    Dieudonné B, Francart T.
    Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():78-84. PubMed ID: 29555110
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Effect of interaural electrode insertion depth difference and independent band selection on sentence recognition in noise and spatial release from masking in simulated bilateral cochlear implant listening.
    Fathima H, Bhat JS, Pitchaimuthu AN.
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2023 Jul; 280(7):3209-3217. PubMed ID: 36695909
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing.
    Chen F, Loizou PC.
    Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):259-67. PubMed ID: 20081538
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 7.