Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 105

1.
3.

Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.

Morera C, Manrique M, Ramos A, Garcia-Ibanez L, Cavalle L, Huarte A, Castillo C, Estrada E.

Acta Otolaryngol. 2005 Jun;125(6):596-606.

PMID:
16076708
4.

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 May-Jun;34(3):324-32. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318272f189.

PMID:
23263408
5.

Timbre and speech perception in bimodal and bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.

Kong YY, Mullangi A, Marozeau J.

Ear Hear. 2012 Sep-Oct;33(5):645-59. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318252caae.

6.

Mandarin speech perception in combined electric and acoustic stimulation.

Li Y, Zhang G, Galvin JJ 3rd, Fu QJ.

PLoS One. 2014 Nov 11;9(11):e112471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112471. eCollection 2014.

7.

The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.

Sheffield BM, Zeng FG.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Jan;131(1):518-30. doi: 10.1121/1.3662074.

8.

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 Jan-Feb;35(1):97-109. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182a2c814.

PMID:
24141594
9.

Talker intelligibility differences in cochlear implant listeners.

Green T, Katiri S, Faulkner A, Rosen S.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Jun;121(6):EL223-9. Erratum in: J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Aug;130(2):1071.

PMID:
17552573
10.

Effect of speaking rate on recognition of synthetic and natural speech by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners.

Ji C, Galvin JJ 3rd, Xu A, Fu QJ.

Ear Hear. 2013 May-Jun;34(3):313-23. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31826fe79e.

11.

Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.

Carroll J, Tiaden S, Zeng FG.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Oct;130(4):2054-62. doi: 10.1121/1.3631563.

12.

Cross-frequency integration for consonant and vowel identification in bimodal hearing.

Kong YY, Braida LD.

J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Jun;54(3):959-80. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0197). Epub 2010 Nov 8.

13.
14.

Effect of speech degradation on top-down repair: phonemic restoration with simulations of cochlear implants and combined electric-acoustic stimulation.

Ba┼čkent D.

J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2012 Oct;13(5):683-92. doi: 10.1007/s10162-012-0334-3. Epub 2012 May 9.

15.

Mandarin Tone and Vowel Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Talker Variability and Bimodal Hearing.

Chang YP, Chang RY, Lin CY, Luo X.

Ear Hear. 2016 May-Jun;37(3):271-81. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000265.

16.

Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss.

Firszt JB, Holden LK, Reeder RM, Cowdrey L, King S.

Ear Hear. 2012 Jul-Aug;33(4):521-33. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31824b9dfc.

17.

The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.

Sheffield SW, Gifford RH.

Audiol Neurootol. 2014;19(3):151-63. doi: 10.1159/000357588. Epub 2014 Feb 15.

18.

Vocal emotion recognition by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users.

Xin Luo, Fu QJ, Galvin JJ 3rd.

Trends Amplif. 2007 Dec;11(4):301-15. Erratum in: Trends Amplif. 2007 Sep;11(3):e1.

19.

Contralateral Bimodal Stimulation: A Way to Enhance Speech Performance in Arabic-Speaking Cochlear Implant Patients.

Abdeltawwab MM, Khater A, El-Anwar MW.

ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2016;78(3):126-35. doi: 10.1159/000381024. Epub 2016 Apr 20.

PMID:
27093303
20.

Talker variability effects on vocal emotion recognition in acoustic and simulated electric hearing.

Luo X.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2016 Dec;140(6):EL497. doi: 10.1121/1.4971758.

PMID:
28040001

Supplemental Content

Support Center