Effect of stimulation rate on speech perception in adult users of the Med-El CIS speech processing strategy Efectos de la tasa de estimulación en la percepción del lenguaje en usuarios adultos de la estrategia de procesamiento Med-El CIS
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] M. Dorman,et al. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[2] A. Thornton,et al. Confidence levels for differences between speech-discrimination scores. A research note. , 1980, Journal of speech and hearing research.
[3] Measurement of the Temporal-Modulation Transfer Function for a Single Listener with Cochlear Hearing Loss and Left-Hemisphere Damage , 2000, British journal of audiology.
[4] G. Clark,et al. Electrode Discrimination and Speech Perception in Young Children Using Cochlear Implants , 2000, Ear and hearing.
[5] R. Shannon,et al. Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[6] P. Iverson. Evaluating the function of phonetic perceptual phenomena within speech recognition: an examination of the perception of /d/-/t/ by adult cochlear implant users. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[7] K. Plant,et al. Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System , 2000, Ear and hearing.
[8] R V Shannon,et al. Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.
[9] R. Shannon. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[10] M. Dorman,et al. Vowel and Consonant Recognition with the Aid of a Multichannel Cochlear Implant , 1991, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.
[11] N Marangos,et al. COCHLEAR IMPLANTS , 1976, The Lancet.
[12] P C Loizou,et al. Minimum spectral contrast needed for vowel identification by normal hearing and cochlear implant listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[13] Q J Fu,et al. Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[14] J Bamford,et al. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. , 1979, British journal of audiology.
[15] D J Van Tasell,et al. Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[16] R V Shannon,et al. Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[17] P C Loizou,et al. On the number of channels needed to understand speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[18] D T Lawson,et al. Temporal representations with cochlear implants. , 1997, The American journal of otology.
[19] Philipos C. Loizou,et al. Word Recognition by Children Listening to Speech Processed into a Small Number of Channels: Data from Normal-Hearing Children and Children with Cochlear Implants , 2000, Ear and hearing.
[20] M. Dorman,et al. Relative spectral change and formant transitions as cues to labial and alveolar place of articulation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[21] D J Van Tasell,et al. Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[22] J. T Rubinstein,et al. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.
[23] G S Donaldson,et al. Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[24] W Baumgartner,et al. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. , 1997, The American journal of otology.
[25] M F Dorman,et al. The Identification of Consonants and Vowels by Cochlear Implant Patients Using a 6‐Channel Continuous Interleaved Sampling Processor and by Normal‐Hearing Subjects Using Simulations of Processors with Two to Nine Channels , 1998, Ear and hearing.
[26] G M Clark,et al. The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[27] D B Pisoni,et al. Cognitive Factors and Cochlear Implants: Some Thoughts on Perception, Learning, and Memory in Speech Perception , 2000, Ear and hearing.
[28] M F Dorman,et al. Acoustic cues for consonant identification by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[29] M F Dorman,et al. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. , 1997, The American journal of otology.
[30] The effect of frequency allocation on phoneme recognition with the nucleus 22 cochlear implant. , 1999, The American journal of otology.