Response to letter to the editor

Author(s):  
Cody J. Mansfield ◽  
Charlie Domnisch ◽  
Laura Iglar ◽  
Laura Boucher ◽  
James Onate ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
1978 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-200
Author(s):  
Peter B. Smith
Keyword(s):  

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-89
Author(s):  
Lawrence I. Shotland
Keyword(s):  

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-87
Author(s):  
David Cieliczka
Keyword(s):  

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-93
Author(s):  
Larry Engelmann
Keyword(s):  

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-92
Author(s):  
Gregory Frazer
Keyword(s):  

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-92
Author(s):  
Edwin L. Harless
Keyword(s):  

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-89
Author(s):  
Bill Fitzgibbon
Keyword(s):  

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 73-74
Author(s):  
Kazunari J. Koike
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 4325-4326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartmut Meister ◽  
Katrin Fuersen ◽  
Barbara Streicher ◽  
Ruth Lang-Roth ◽  
Martin Walger

Purpose The purpose of this letter is to compare results by Skuk et al. (2020) with Meister et al. (2016) and to point to a potential general influence of stimulus type. Conclusion Our conclusion is that presenting sentences may give cochlear implant recipients the opportunity to use timbre cues for voice perception. This might not be the case when presenting brief and sparse stimuli such as consonant–vowel–consonant or single words, which were applied in the majority of studies.


1950 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 266-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Pedrey
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document