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

1038 related items for PubMed ID: 24157128

  • 1. Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise.
    Van Zyl M, Hanekom JJ.
    J Commun Disord; 2013; 46(5-6):449-64. PubMed ID: 24157128
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Identification of vowel length, word stress, and compound words and phrases by postlingually deafened cochlear implant listeners.
    Morris D, Magnusson L, Faulkner A, Jönsson R, Juul H.
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Oct; 24(9):879-90. PubMed ID: 24224994
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing.
    Peng SC, Tomblin JB, Turner CW.
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):336-51. PubMed ID: 18344873
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Fundamental frequency information for speech recognition via bimodal stimulation: cochlear implant in one ear and hearing aid in the other.
    Shpak T, Most T, Luntz M.
    Ear Hear; 2014 Dec; 35(1):97-109. PubMed ID: 24141594
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience.
    Whitmal NA, Poissant SF, Freyman RL, Helfer KS.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Oct; 122(4):2376-88. PubMed ID: 17902872
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. The perception of prosody and speaker gender in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant recipients.
    Meister H, Landwehr M, Pyschny V, Walger M, von Wedel H.
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Jan; 48(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 19173112
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification.
    Cullington HE, Zeng FG.
    Ear Hear; 2011 Feb; 32(1):16-30. PubMed ID: 21178567
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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 Feb; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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 Feb; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.
    Sagi E, Svirsky MA.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Feb; 141(2):1027. PubMed ID: 28253672
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Vowel perception: experiments with a single-electrode cochlear implant.
    Doyle KJ, Danhauer JL, Edgerton BJ.
    J Speech Hear Res; 1986 Jun; 29(2):179-92. PubMed ID: 3755193
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.
    Winn MB, Won JH, Moon IJ.
    Ear Hear; 2016 Jun; 37(6):e377-e390. PubMed ID: 27438871
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Use of intonation contours for speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant recipients.
    Meister H, Landwehr M, Pyschny V, Grugel L, Walger M.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 May; 129(5):EL204-9. PubMed ID: 21568376
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. 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]

  • 19. The relative importance of spectral cues for vowel recognition in severe noise.
    Swanepoel R, Oosthuizen DJ, Hanekom JJ.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2652-62. PubMed ID: 23039458
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Acoustic Analysis of Persian Vowels in Cochlear Implant Users: A Comparison With Hearing-impaired Children Using Hearing Aid and Normal-hearing Children.
    Jafari N, Yadegari F, Jalaie S.
    J Voice; 2016 Nov; 30(6):763.e1-763.e7. PubMed ID: 26725549
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 52.