References
- Bacon S.P., Opie J.M. & Montoya D.Y. 1998. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res , 41, 549–563.
- Bernstein J.G. & Grant K.W. 2009. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 3358–3372.
- Bierer J.A. 2007. Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 1642–1653.
- Chasin M. 2012. Music and hearing aids-an introduction. Trend Amplificat, 16, 136–139.
- Chatterjee M. 1999. Temporal mechanisms underlying recovery from forward masking in multielectrode-implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 1853–1863.
- Cohen L.T., Richardson L.M., Saunders E. & Cowan R.S. 2003. Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking. Hear Res, 179, 72–87.
- Dubno J.R., Horwitz A.R. & Ahlstrom J.B. 2003. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 2084–2094.
- Eisenberg L.S., Dirks D.D. & Bell T.S. 1995. Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 222–233.
- Fastl H. 1987. Ein Störgeräusch für die Sprachaudiometrie. Audiol Akust, 26, 2–13.
- Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725–1736.
- Fu Q.J. & Shannon R.V. 1998. Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 2570–2577.
- Galvin J.J. & Fu Q.J. III 2009. Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users. Hear Res, 250, 46–54.
- George E.L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2006. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295–2311.
- Geurts L. & Wouters J. 2001. Coding of the fundamental frequency in continuous interleaved sampling processors for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 713–726.
- Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C. & Bacon S.P. 1987. Gap detection and masking in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 81, 1546–1556.
- Green T., Faulkner A. & Rosen S. 2002. Spectral and temporal cues to pitch in noise-excited vocoder simulations of continuous-interleaved-sampling cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2155–2164.
- Gregan M.J., Nelson P.B. & Oxenham A.J. 2013. Behavioral measures of cochlear compression and temporal resolution as predictors of speech masking release in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 134, 2895–2912.
- Ihlefeld A., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. & Carlyon R.P. 2012. Comodulation masking release in speech identification with real and simulated cochlear-implant hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 131, 1315–1324.
- Jin S.H. & Nelson P.B. 2006. Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 3097–3108.
- Karg S.A., Lackner C. & Hemmert W. 2013. Temporal interaction in electrical hearing elucidates auditory nerve dynamics in humans. Hear Res, 299, 10–18.
- Kilman L., Zekveld A., Hallgren M. & Ronnberg J. 2015. Native and Non-native Speech Perception by Hearing-Impaired Listeners in Noise- and Speech Maskers. Trend Hear, 19, 1–12,
- Kreft H.A., Nelson D.A. & Oxenham A.J. 2013. Modulation frequency discrimination with modulated and unmodulated interference in normal hearing and in cochlear-implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol , 14, 591–601.
- Kwon B.J., Perry T.T., Wilhelm C.L. & Healy E.W. 2012. Sentence recognition in noise promoting or suppressing masking release by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 131, 3111–3119.
- Lorenzi C., Sibellas J., Fullgrabe C., Gallego S., Fugain C. et al. 2004. Effects of amplitude compression on first- and second-order modulation detection thresholds in cochlear implant listeners. Int J Audiol, 43, 264–270.
- Macpherson A. & Akeroyd M.A. 2014. Variations in the slope of the psychometric functions for speech intelligibility: a systematic survey. Trend Hear, 18, 1–26
- Mckay C.M. & Carlyon R.P. 1999. Dual temporal pitch percepts from acoustic and electric amplitude-modulated pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 347–357.
- Miller G.A. & Licklider J.C.R. 1950. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 167–173.
- Nelson D.A. & Donaldson G.S. 2002. Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2932–2947.
- Nelson D.A., Donaldson G.S. & Kreft H. 2008. Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1522–1543.
- Nelson P.B. & Jin S.H. 2004. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 2286–2294.
- Nelson P.B., Jin S.H., Carney A.E. & Nelson D.A. 2003. Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 961–968.
- Oxenham A.J. & Kreft H.A. 2014. Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing. Trend Hear, 18, 1–14.
- Oxenham A.J. & Simonson A.M. 2009. Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 457–468.
- Peters R.W., Moore B.C. & Baer T. 1998. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 577–587.
- Pierzycki R.H. & Seeber B.U. 2014. Comodulation masking release in electric hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 15, 279–291.
- Qin M.K. & Oxenham A.J. 2003. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 446–454.
- Rader T., Baumann U. & Fastl H. 2009. Comparison of Speech Intelligibility by Eas, Bimodal, Uni- and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Patients in a ‘Multi-Source Noise Field’ (MSNF) Proc. Intern. Conf. on Acoustics (NAG/DAGA), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1288–1290.
- Rader T., Fastl H. & Baumann U. 2013. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Ear Hear, 34, 324–332.
- Riss D., Hamzavi J.S., Blineder M., Honeder C., Ehrenreich I. et al. 2014. FS4, FS4-p, and FSP: a 4-month crossover study of 3 fine structure sound-coding strategies. Ear Hear, 35, e272–e281.
- Rubinstein J.T. 2004. How cochlear implants encode speech. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg , 12, 444–448.
- Stickney G.S., Zeng F.G., Litovsky R. & Assmann P. 2004. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 1081–1091.
- Stobich B., Zierhofer C.M. & Hochmair E.S. 1999. Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Ear Hear, 20, 104–116.
- Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache. Teil II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. [Development and evaluation of a German sentence test. Part II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence test]. Z Audiol/Audiological Acoustics, 38, 44–56
- Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache. Teil III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests [Development and evaluation of a German sentence test. Part III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test]. Z Audiol/Audiological Acoustics, 38, 86–95.
- Wilson R.H. & Carhart R. 1969. Influence of pulsed masking on the threshold for spondees. J Acoust Soc Am, 46, 998–1010.
- Xu L., Tsai Y. & Pfingst B.E. 2002. Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 247–258.
- Zirn S., Hempel J.M., Schuster M. & Hemmert W. 2013. Comodulation masking release induced by controlled electrical stimulation of auditory nerve fibers. Hear Res, 296, 60–66.