Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 125

1.

T'ain't the way you say it, it's what you say--perceptual continuity of voice and top-down restoration of speech.

Clarke J, Gaudrain E, Chatterjee M, Başkent D.

Hear Res. 2014 Sep;315:80-7. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.07.002. Epub 2014 Jul 11.

PMID:
25019356
2.

Perceptual learning of interrupted speech.

Benard MR, Başkent D.

PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058149. Epub 2013 Mar 1.

3.

Perceptual learning of temporally interrupted spectrally degraded speech.

Benard MR, Başkent D.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2014 Sep;136(3):1344. doi: 10.1121/1.4892756.

PMID:
25190407
4.

Phonemic restoration in sensorineural hearing loss does not depend on baseline speech perception scores.

Başkent D.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Oct;128(4):EL169-74. doi: 10.1121/1.3475794.

PMID:
20968321
5.

The effect of visual cues on top-down restoration of temporally interrupted speech, with and without further degradations.

Benard MR, Başkent D.

Hear Res. 2015 Oct;328:24-33. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.06.013. Epub 2015 Jun 25.

PMID:
26117407
6.

Effects of periodic masker interruption on the intelligibility of interrupted speech.

Iyer N, Brungart DS, Simpson BD.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Sep;122(3):1693.

PMID:
17927429
7.

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

Başkent D.

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

8.

Influences of auditory object formation on phonemic restoration.

Shinn-Cunningham BG, Wang D.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Jan;123(1):295-301. doi: 10.1121/1.2804701.

PMID:
18177159
9.

Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users.

Bhargava P, Gaudrain E, Başkent D.

Hear Res. 2014 Mar;309:113-23. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.12.003. Epub 2013 Dec 22.

PMID:
24368138
10.

Pitch and spectral resolution: A systematic comparison of bottom-up cues for top-down repair of degraded speech.

Clarke J, Başkent D, Gaudrain E.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2016 Jan;139(1):395-405. doi: 10.1121/1.4939962.

PMID:
26827034
11.

Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test.

Cameron S, Dillon H, Newall P.

Ear Hear. 2006 Feb;27(1):30-42.

PMID:
16446563
12.

Use of speech-modulated noise adds strong "bottom-up" cues for phonemic restoration.

Bashford JA Jr, Warren RM, Brown CA.

Percept Psychophys. 1996 Apr;58(3):342-50.

PMID:
8935895
13.

The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect.

Patel R, Schell KW.

J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Feb;51(1):209-20. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/016).

PMID:
18230867
14.

The influence of tonal movement and vowel quality on intelligibility in singing.

Andreas T.

Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2006;31(1):17-22.

PMID:
16517520
15.

Cross-linguistic comparison of frequency-following responses to voice pitch in American and Chinese neonates and adults.

Jeng FC, Hu J, Dickman B, Montgomery-Reagan K, Tong M, Wu G, Lin CD.

Ear Hear. 2011 Nov-Dec;32(6):699-707. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31821cc0df.

PMID:
21543983
16.

T'ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it--left insula and inferior frontal cortex work in interaction with superior temporal regions to control the performance of vocal impersonations.

McGettigan C, Eisner F, Agnew ZK, Manly T, Wisbey D, Scott SK.

J Cogn Neurosci. 2013 Nov;25(11):1875-86. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00427. Epub 2013 May 22.

17.

Role of spectral and temporal cues in restoring missing speech information.

Gilbert G, Lorenzi C.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Nov;128(5):EL294-9. doi: 10.1121/1.3501962.

PMID:
21110541
18.

Effects of cross-language voice training on speech perception: whose familiar voices are more intelligible?

Levi SV, Winters SJ, Pisoni DB.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Dec;130(6):4053-62. doi: 10.1121/1.3651816.

19.

Perceptual restoration of degraded speech is preserved with advancing age.

Saija JD, Akyürek EG, Andringa TC, Başkent D.

J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Feb;15(1):139-48. doi: 10.1007/s10162-013-0422-z. Epub 2013 Nov 7.

20.

Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: effect of masker type.

Deroche ML, Culling JF.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Nov;134(5):EL465-70. doi: 10.1121/1.4826152.

PMID:
24181992

Supplemental Content

Support Center