Publications

When possible, we aim for open-access publication. Many papers linked below are available as such, but some others, especially older ones, may still be protected under journal’s copyright.

Papers (peer-reviewed)

  1. Wagner, L, Maurits, N, Maat, B, Başkent, D, Wagner, A, 2017. The cochlear implant EEG artifact recorded from an artificial brain for complex acoustic stimuli. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, under revision.
  2. Pals, C, Sarampalis, A, van Dijk, M, Başkent, D, 2017. Effects of simulated electric acoustic hearing on listening effort and perception of speech in quiet and in noise. Ear Hear, under revision.
  3. Bhargava, P, Gaudrain, E, Holmes, SD, Morse, RP, Başkent, D, 2017. Temporal gap detection in speech-like stimuli by users of cochlear implants: free field and direct stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, under revision.
  4. Tamati, TN, Janse, E, Başkent, D, 2017. Perceptual discrimination of speaking styles under cochlear implant simulation. Ear Hear, accepted with minor revision.
  5. Saija, JD, Başkent, D, Andringa, TC, Akyürek, EG, 2017. Visual and auditory temporal integration in healthy younger and older adults. Psych Res, accepted.
  6. Gaudrain, E, and Başkent, D, 2017. Voice pitch and vocal tract-length discrimination in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, in press.
  7. Clarke, J, Kazanoǧlu, D, Başkent, D, Gaudrain, E, 2017. Effect of F0 contours on top-down repair of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am 157, EL7-EL12. link
  8. Başkent, D, Clarke, J, Pals, C, Benard, MR, Bhargava, P, Saija, J, Sarampalis, A, Wagner A, Gaudrain, E, 2016. Cognitive compensation of speech perception with hearing impairment, cochlear implants, and aging: How and to what degree can it be achieved? Tr Hearing 20, 1–16. pdf
  9. Bhargava, P, Gaudrain, E, Başkent, D, 2016. The intelligibility of interrupted speech: cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 17, 475–491. pdf
  10. van den Bosch, KA, Andringa, TC, Başkent, D, & Vlaskamp, C, 2016. The role of sound in residential facilities for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil 13, 61–68. pdf
  11. Wagner, A, Toffanin, P, and Başkent, D, 2016. The timing and effort of lexical access in natural and degraded speech. Front Psych 7, 398. pdf
  12. Başkent, D, and Gaudrain, E, 2016. Musician advantage for speech-on-speech perception. JASA-EL 139, EL51-EL56. pdf
  13. Clarke, J, Başkent, D, and Gaudrain, E, 2016. Pitch and spectral resolution: a systematic comparison of bottom-up cues for top-down repair of degraded speech. J Acoust Soc Am 139, 395-405. pdf
  14. Gilbers, S, Fuller, C, Gilbers, D, Broersma, M, Goudbeek, M, Free, R, Başkent, D, 2015. Normal-hearing listeners’ and cochlear-implant users’ perception of pitch cues in emotional speech. i-Perception 6, 1–19. pdf
  15. Galvin III, JJ, Oba, SI, Başkent, D, Chatterjee, M, and Fu, Q-J, 2015. Envelope interactions in multi-channel amplitude modulation frequency discrimination by cochlear implant users. PLOS-One 10, e0139546. pdf
  16. Pals, C, Sarampalis, A, van Rijn, H, Başkent, D, 2015. Validation of a simple response-time measure of listening effort. JASA-EL 138, EL187-EL92. pdf
  17. Benard, MR, and Başkent, D, 2015. The effect of visual cues on top-down restoration of temporally interrupted speech, with and without further degradations. Hear Res. 328, 24-33. pdf
  18. Boyen, K, Başkent, D, van Dijk, P, 2015. The gap detection test: Can it be used to diagnose tinnitus? Ear Hear, 36, e138-e145. pdf
  19. Gaudrain, E, and Başkent, D, 2015. Factors limiting vocal-tract length discrimination in cochlear implant simulations. J Acoust Soc Am. 137, 1298-1308. pdf
  20. Galvin III, JJ, Oba, S, Başkent, D, Fu, Q-J, 2015. Modulation frequency discrimination with single and multiple channels in cochlear implant users. Hear Res. 324, 7-18. pdf
  21. Lazard, DS, Maat, A, Başkent,D, …, Blamey, PJ, 2015. Multicentric study shows a significant advantage of bilateral implantation compared to bimodal rehabilitation. Ear Hear. 36, 408-416. pdf
  22. Benard, MR, and Başkent, D, 2014. Perceptual learning of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded speech. J Acoust Soc Am 136, 1344-1351. pdf
  23. Fuller, C, Gaudrain, E, Galvin III, JJ, Clarke, JN, Free, R, Başkent, D, 2014. Gender categorization is abnormal in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryn 15, 1037-1048. pdf
  24. Clarke, J, Gaudrain, E, Chatterjee, M, and Başkent, D, 2014. T’ain’t the way you say it, it’s what you say – Perceptual voice continuity and top-down restoration of speech. Hear Res. 325, 80-87. pdf
  25. Fuller, C, Galvin III, JJ, Free, R, Maat, B, Başkent, D, 2014. The musician effect: Does it persist under degraded pitch conditions of cochlear implant simulations? Front. Neurosci. 8:179. pdf
  26. Galvin III, JJ, Fu, Q-J, Oba, S, Chatterjee, M, and Başkent, D, 2014. Single- and multi-channel modulation detection in cochlear implant users. PLoS ONE 9, e99338. pdf
  27. Saija, JD, Andringa, TC,  Başkent, D, Akyürek, EG, 2014. Temporal integration of tones into synthetic vowels demonstrates perceptual assembly in audition. J Exp Psych:HPP 40, 857-869. pdf
  28. Fuller, C, Galvin III, Free, R, Başkent, D, 2014. Musician effect in cochlear-implant simulated gender categorization. J Acoust Soc Am 135, EL159-EL165. pdf supplementMM
  29. Başkent, D, van Engelshoven, S, and Galvin III, JJ, 2014. Susceptibility to interference by music and speech maskers in middle-aged adults. J Acoust Soc Am 135, EL147-EL153. pdf supplementMM
  30. Galvin III, JJ, Fu, Q-J, Oba, S, and Başkent, D, 2014. A method to dynamically control unwanted loudness cues when measuring amplitude modulation detection in cochlear implant users. J Neurosc Methods 222, 207-212. pdf
  31. Saija, JD, Akyürek, EG, Andringa, T, Başkent, D, 2014. Perceptual restoration of degraded speech is preserved with advancing age. J Assoc Res Otolaryn 15, 139-148. pdf
  32. Benard, MR, Mensink, JS, Başkent, D, 2014. Individual differences in top-down restoration of interrupted speech: Links to linguistic and cognitive abilities. J Acoust Soc Am EL 135, EL88-EL94. pdf
  33. Bhargava, P, Gaudrain, E, and Başkent, D, 2014. Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res 309, 113-123. pdf
  34. Başkent, D, van Rij, J, Ng, ZY, Free, R, Hendriks, P, 2013. Perception of spectrally degraded reflexives and pronouns by children. J Acoust Soc Am 134, 3844-3852. pdf
  35. Pals, C, Sarampalis, A, Başkent, D, 2013. Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations. J Sp Hear Lang Res 56, 1075-1084. pdf
  36. Fuller, C, Mallinckrodt, L, Maat, B, Başkent, D, Free, R, 2013. Music and quality of life in early-deafened late-implanted cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 34, 1041-1047. pdf
  37. Benard, MR, and Başkent, D, 2013. Perceptual learning of interrupted speech. PLoS ONE 8, 558149. pdf
  38. Blamey, P, Artieres, F, Başkent, D, et al., 2013. Factors affecting auditory performance of post-linguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurotol. 18,36-47, (DOI: 10.1159/000343189). pdf
  39. Valkenier, B, Duyne, JY, Andringa, TC, Başkent, D, 2012. The effect of noise on congruent and incongruent audio-visual perception of high front vowels in Dutch. J Sp Lang Hear Res 55, 1788-1801. pdf
  40. Akyürek, EG, Eshuis, SAH, Nieuwenstein, MR, Saija, JD, Başkent, D, Hommel, B, 2012. Temporal target integration underlies performance at lag 1 in the attentional blink. J Exp Psych: Human Perception & Performance 38, 1448. pdf
  41. Lazard DS, Vincent C, Venail F, et al., 2012. Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: A new conceptual model over time. PLoS ONE 7, e48739. pdf
  42. Başkent, D, 2012. Effect of speech degradation on top-down repair: Phonemic restoration with simulations of cochlear implants and combined electric-acoustic stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryn. 13 683-692. pdf
  43. Fuller, C, Maat, A, Free, R, and Başkent, D, 2012. Musical background not associated with self-perceived hearing performance or speech perception in postlingual cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 132, 1009-1016. pdf
  44. Riecke, L, Vanbussel, M, Hausfeld, L, Başkent, D, Formisano, E, Esposito, F, 2012. Tracking illusory pitch through noise: Suppression of slow oscillations in auditory cortex. J Neurosci 32, 8024-8034. pdf
  45. Bhargava, P, and Başkent, D, 2012. Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of periodically interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am 131, EL87-EL92. pdf
  46. Başkent, D, and Bazo, D, 2011.  Detection of audio-visual speech asynchrony by hearing-impaired listeners. Ear. Hear. 32, 582-595. pdf
  47. Başkent, D, and Chatterjee, M, 2010. Recognition of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded sentences with additional unprocessed low-frequency speech. Hear Res 270, 127-133. pdf
  48. Başkent, D, 2010. Phonemic restoration in sensorineural hearing loss does not depend on baseline speech perception scores.  J Acoust Soc Am Letters 128, EL169-EL174. pdf
  49. Chatterjee, M, Peredo, F, Nelson, D, and Başkent, D, 2010. Recognition of interrupted sentences under conditions of spectral degradation. J Acoust Soc Am Letters 127, EL37-EL41. pdf
  50. Başkent, D, Eiler, CL, and Edwards, B, 2010. Phonemic restoration by hearing-impaired listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res 260, 54-62. pdf
  51. Başkent, D, Eiler, CL, and Edwards, B, 2009. Effects of envelope discontinuities on perceptual restoration of amplitude-compressed speech. J Acoust Soc Am 126, 3995-4005. pdf
  52. Friesen, LM, Tremblay, KL, Rohila, N, Wright, R, Shannon, RV, Başkent, D, Rubinstein, JT, 2009. Evoked cortical activity and speech recognition as a function of the number of simulated cochlear implant channels. Clin Neurophys 120, 776-782. pdf
  53. Başkent, D, and Edwards, B, 2007. Simulating listener errors in using genetic algorithms for perceptual optimization. J Acoust Soc Am 121, EL238-EL243. pdf
  54. Başkent, D, Eiler, C, and Edwards, B, 2007. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input: Implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants. Ear Hear 28, 370-380. pdf
  55. Başkent, D and Shannon, RV, 2007. Combined effects of frequency-place compression-expansion and shift on speech recognition. Ear Hear 28, 277-289. pdf
  56. Başkent, D, 2006. Speech recognition in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss as a function of the number of the spectral channels. J Acoust Soc Am 120, 2908-2925. pdf
  57. Başkent, D and Shannon, RV, 2006. Frequency transposition around dead regions simulated with a noiseband vocoder. J Acoust Soc Am 119, 1156-1163. pdf
  58. Başkent, D and Shannon,  RV, 2005. Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. J Acoust Soc Am 117, 1405-1416. pdf
  59. Başkent, D and Shannon,  RV, 2004. Frequency-place compression and expansion in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116, 3130-3140. pdf
  60. Başkent, D and Shannon,  RV, 2003. Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion. J Acoust Soc Am 113, 2064-2076. pdf
  61. Shannon,  RV, Galvin, JJ, and Başkent, D, 2001. Holes in hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryn 3, 185-199. pdf
  62. Friesen, LM, Shannon,  RV, Başkent, D, and Wang, X, 2001. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 110, 1150-1163. pdf
  63. Barshan, B and Başkent, D, 2001. Morphological surface profile extraction with multiple range sensors. Pattern Recog 34, 97-105. pdf
  64. Barshan, B and Başkent, D, 2000. Comparison of two methods of surface profile extraction from multiple ultrasonic range measurements. Meas Sci Tech 11, 833-844. pdf
  65. Başkent, D and Barshan, B, 1999. Surface profile determination from multiple sonar data using morphological processing. Int J Rob Res 18, 788-808. pdf

PhD theses

  1. Clarke, J, 2017 (promotor; co-supervisor: Dr. E. Gaudrain). The pitch hunt: The role of vocal characteristics in top-down repair of interrupted speech.
  2. van Meerveld, B, 2016 (co-promotor, supervisors: Dr. T. Andringa, Prof. L. Schomaker; Dept. Artificial Intelligence). Vowel processing in cluttered auditory scenes. pdf
  3. Fuller, CD, 2016 (promotor, co-supervisor: Dr. R. Free). The effect of music on auditory perception in cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners. pdf
  4. Pals, C, 2016 (promotor, co-supervisor: Dr. A. Sarampalis). Listening effort: The hidden costs and benefits of cochlear implants. pdf
  5. Galvin, JJ, 2016 (promotor, co-supervisor: Prof. Q.-J Fu). Perception of amplitude modulation with single or multiple channels in cochlear implant users. pdf
  6. Bhargava, P, 2016 (promotor, co-supervisor: Dr. E. Gaudrain). Interrupted speech perception: Top-down restoration in cochlear implant users. pdf
  7. van den Bosch, K, 2015 (co-promotor; Dept. Orthopedagogy). Safe and sound: Soundscape research in special needs care. pdf
  8. Benard, MR, 2015 (promotor). Auditory and cognitive mechanisms of top-down restoration of degraded speech: Implications for cochlear implant users. pdf

Books and book chapters

  1. Başkent, D, Gaudrain, E, Tamati, TN, Wagner, A, 2016. Perception and psychoacoustics of speech in cochlear implant users. In Cacace A.T., de Kleine E., Holt A., van Dijk P. (Eds.) Scientific Foundations of Audiology. ISBN13:978-1-59756-652-0. pdf
  2. van Dijk, P, Başkent, D, Gaudrain, E, de Kleine, E, Wagner, A, Lanting, CP, editors, 2016. Physiology, psychoacoustics and cognition in normal and impaired hearing, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 894. ISBN 978-3-319-25472-2. pdf
  3. Wagner, A, Pals, C, de Blecourt, CM, Sarampalis, A, and Başkent, D, 2016. Does signal degradation affect top-down processing of speech? In van Dijk, P, Başkent, D, Gaudrain, E, de Kleine, E, Wagner, A, Lanting, CP (Eds.). Physiology, Psychoacoustics and Cognition in Normal and Impaired Hearing, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 894, 297-306. pdf
  4. Barshan, B and Başkent, D, 2001. Map building from range data with mathematical morphology. In Active Sensors for Local Planning in Mobile Robotics, ed. P. Robert Smith, World Scientific Series in Robotics and Intelligent Systems Vol. 26, Chap. 7, pp. 111–135, World Scientific, New Jersey.

Other papers, proceedings, opinion pieces

  1. Wagner, A, Toffanin, P, Başkent, D, 2015. How hard can it be to ignore the pan in panda? Effort of lexical competition as measured in pupil dilation. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, UK: the University of Glasgow. ISBN 978-0-85261-941-4. pdf
  2. Başkent, D, 2014. The ear-brain connection in cochlear implant users: learning to listen again. ENT & Audiology News, 23, 94-96. pdf
  3. van den Bosch, KA, Vlaskamp, C, Andringa, TC, Başkent, D, Ruijssenaars, AJJM, 2014. Veilige auditieve omgevingen met visuele en verstandelijke beperkingen. Onderzoeksrapportage ten behoeve van praktijk. pdf
  4. Gaudrain E, Stam, L, Başkent, D, 2014. Measure and model of vocal-tract length discrimination in cochlear implants. 4th International Conference on Audio, Language and Image Processing (ICALIP), Shanghai, China. IEEE catalog No. CFP1450D-PRT. pdf
  5. Eiler, C, Başkent, D, Recker, K, and Edwards, B, 2008. Genetic algorithms: The future of hearing aid fitting? Hear J 61, 16-21. pdf
  6. Cord, M, Başkent, D, Kalluri, S, and Moore, BC, 2007. Disparity between clinical assessment and real-world performance of hearing aids: Why is it so difficult to predict patient outcomes? Hear Rev 6, 22-26. pdf

Patents

  1. Başkent, D, 2013. Genetic algorithms with subjective input for hearing assistance devices. Patent No. US 8,559,662 B2. pdf
  2. Başkent, D, and Durant, E, 2013. Genetic algorithms with robust rank estimation for hearing assistance devices. Patent No. US 8,359,283 B2. pdf
  3. Fitz, K, Edwards, B, and Başkent, D, 2011. Frequency translation by high-frequency spectral envelope warping in hearing assistance devices. Patent No. US 8,000,487 B2. pdf