When possible, we aim for open-access publications. 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. Jebens, A, Başkent, D, Rachman, L (in revision). Phonological effects on the perceptual weighting of voice cues for voice gender categorization.
  2. Harding, EH, Gaudrain, H, Hrycyk, IJ, Harris, RL, Tillmann, B, Maat, A, Free, RH, Başkent, D (in revision). Musical emotion categorization with vocoders of varying temporal and spectral content.
  3. Biçer, A, Koelewijn, T, Başkent, D (in revision). Short implicit voice training affects listening effort during a voice cue sensitivity task with vocoder degraded speech.
  4. Everhardt, MK, Sarampalis, A, Coler, M, Başkent, D, Lowie, W (in revision). Lexical stress identification in cochlear implant-simulated speech by non-native listeners.
  5. Gray, R, Sarampalis, A, Başkent, D, Harding, E, 2022. Working-memory, alpha-theta oscillations and musical training in older age: research perspectives for speech-on-speech perception, mini review. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, section Neurocognitive Aging and Behavior, 14:806439. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.806439
  6. Fuller, CD, Free, RH, Maat, A, Başkent, D, 2022. Self-reported music perception is related to quality of life and self-reported hearing abilities in cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 23(1):1-10. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2021.1948716
  7. de Boer, MJ, Jürgens, T, Başkent, D, Cornelissen, FW, 2021. Auditory and visual integration for emotion recognition and compensation for degraded signals are preserved with age. Tr Hearing 25:23312165211045306. doi: 10.1177/23312165211045306
  8. Koelewijn, T, Gaudrain, E, Tamati, T, Başkent, D, 2021. The effects of lexical content, acoustic and linguistic variability, and vocoding on voice cue perception. J Acoust Soc Am 150, 1620-1634. doi: 10.1121/10.0005938
  9. Nogueira, W, El Boghdady, N, Langner, F, Gaudrain, E, Başkent, D, 2021. Effect of channel interaction on vocal cue perception in cochlear implant users. Tr Hearing 25, 1-23. doi: 10.1177/23312165211030166
  10. Nagels, L, Gaudrain, E, Vickers, D, Hendriks, P, Başkent, D, 2021. School-age children benefit from voice gender cue differences for the perception of speech in competing speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 149, 3328-3344.
  11. Kaplan, EC, Wagner, AE, Toffanin, P, Başkent, D, 2021. Do musicians and non-musicians differ in speech-on-speech processing? Frontiers in Psychology, section Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience 12:623787. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.623787
  12. Arts, F, Başkent, D, and Tamati, T, 2021. Development and structure of the VariaNTS corpus: A spoken Dutch corpus containing talker and linguistic variability. Speech Comm.  127, 64-72.
  13. de Boer, MJ, Jürgens, T, Cornelissen, FW, Başkent, D, 2021. Degraded visual and auditory input individually impair audiovisual emotion recognition from speech-like stimuli, but no evidence for an exacerbated effect from combined degradation. Vision Res. 180, 51-62. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2020.12.002
  14. El Boghdady, N, Langner, F, Gaudrain, E, Başkent, D, and Nogueira, W, 2020. Effect of spectral contrast enhancement on speech-on-speech intelligibility and voice cue sensitivity in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. e-pub. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000936
  15. de Boer, M, Başkent, D, Cornelissen, F, 2020. Eyes on emotion: Dynamic gaze allocation during emotion perception from speech-like stimuli. Multisensory Research 34, 17-47. doi: 10.1163/22134808-bja10029
  16. Nagels, L, Gaudrain, E, Vickers, D, Hendriks, P, Başkent, D, 2020. Development of voice perception is dissociated across gender cues in school-age children. Scientific Reports 10, 1-11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61732-6
  17. Pals, C, Sarampalis, A, Beynon, A, Stainsby, T, and Başkent, D, 2020. Effect of spectral channels on speech recognition, comprehension, and listening effort in cochlear-implant users. Tr Hearing 24, 2331216520904617.   doi: 10.1177/2331216520904617
  18. Everhardt, MK, Sarampalis, A, Coler, M, Başkent, D, Lowie, W, 2020. Meta-analysis on the identification of linguistic and emotional prosody in cochlear implant users and vocoder simulations. Ear. Hear. e-pub. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000863
  19. Nagels, L, Gaudrain, E, Vickers, D, Lopes, MM, Hendriks, P, and Başkent, D, 2020. Development of vocal emotion recognition in school-age children: The EmoHI test for hearing-impaired populations. PeerJ 8, e8773. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8773
  20. Rodman, C, Moberly, A, Janse, E, Başkent, D, and Tamati, TN, 2020. The impact of speaking style on speech recognition in quiet and multi-talker babble in adult cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 147, EL101-EL107. link
  21. Nagels, L, Bastiaanse, R, Başkent, D, Wagner, A, 2020. Individual differences in lexical access among cochlear implant users. J Speech Lang Hear Res 63, 286-304. link
  22. Stawicki, M, Majdak, P, and Başkent, D, 2019. Ventriloquist illusion produced with virtual acoustic spatial cues and asynchronous audio-visual stimuli in both young and older individuals. Multisens Res 32, 745-770. link for paper. link for dataset.
  23. Tamati, TN, Sijp, L, and Başkent, D, 2020. Talker variability in word recognition under cochlear implant simulation: Does talker gender matter? J Acoust Soc Am 147, EL370-EL376. link
  24. Fuller, CD, Başkent, D, and Free, RH, 2019. Early deafened, late implanted cochlear implant users appreciate music more than and identify music as well as postlingual users. Frontiers in Neuroscience, Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, p1050. link
  25. Zobel, BH, Wagner, A, Sanders, LD, and Başkent, D, 2019. Spatial release from informational masking declines with age: Evidence from a detection task in a virtual separation paradigm. J Acoust Soc Am 146, 548-566. link
  26. Wagner, A, Nagels, L, Toffanin, P, Opie, J, Başkent, D, 2019. Individual variations in effort: assessing pupillometry for the hearing impaired. Tr Hearing 23: Pupillometry in Hearing Science Special Issue, 1-18. link
  27. El Boghdady, N, Gaudrain, E, Başkent, D, 2019. Does good perception of vocal characteristics relate to better speech-on-speech intelligibility for cochlear implant users? J Acoust Soc Am 145, 417-439. link
  28. Tamati, TN, Janse, E, Başkent, D, 2019. Perceptual discrimination of speaking styles under cochlear implant simulation. Ear Hear 40, 63-76. link
  29. Pals, C, Sarampalis, A, van Dijk, M, Başkent, D, 2019. Effects of simulated electric acoustic hearing on listening effort and perception of speech in quiet and in noise. Ear Hear 40, 3-17. link
  30. Saija, JD, Başkent, D, Andringa, TC, Akyürek, EG, 2019. Visual and auditory temporal integration in healthy younger and older adults. Psych Res 83, 951-967. link
  31. El Boghdady, N, Başkent, D, Gaudrain, E, 2018. Effect of frequency mismatch and band partitioning on vocal tract length perception in vocoder simulations of cochlear implant processing. J Acoust Soc Am 143, 3505-3519. link
  32. Başkent, D, Fuller, C, Galvin III, J, Schepel, L, Gaudrain, E, Free, R, 2018. Musician effect on perception of spectro-temporally degraded speech, vocal emotion, and music in young adolescents. J Acoust Soc Am EL 143, EL311-EL316. link
  33. Başkent, D, Luckmann, A, Ceha, JM, Gaudrain, E, Tamati, TN, 2018. The discrimination of voice cues in simulations of bimodal electro-acoustic cochlear-implant hearing. J Acoust Soc Am EL 143, EL292-EL297. link
  34. Fuller, C, Galvin III, J, Maat, A, Başkent, D, Free, R, 2018. Comparison of two music training approaches on music and speech perception in cochlear-implant users. Tr Hearing 22, 1-22. link
  35. Wagner, L, Maurits, N, Maat, B, Başkent, D, Wagner, A, 2018. The cochlear implant EEG artifact recorded from an artificial brain for complex acoustic stimuli. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 26, 392-399. link
  36. Riecke, L, Formisano, E, Sorger, B, Başkent, D, Gaudrain, E, 2018.Neural entrainment to speech modulates speech intelligibility. Curr Biol 28, 161-169. link
  37. Gaudrain, E, and Başkent, D, 2018. Voice pitch and vocal tract-length discrimination in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 39, 226-237. link
  38. 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. pdf
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. van den Bosch, KA, Andringa, TC, Başkent, D, and 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
  42. 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
  43. Başkent, D, and Gaudrain, E, 2016. Musician advantage for speech-on-speech perception. JASA-EL 139, EL51-EL56. pdf; Dataverse data link
  44. 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
  45. Gilbers, S, Fuller, CD, Gilbers, D, Broersma, M, Goudbeek, M, Free, RH, Başkent, D, 2015. Normal-hearing listeners’ and cochlear-implant users’ perception of pitch cues in emotional speech. i-Perception 6, 1–19. pdf
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. Gaudrain, E, and Başkent, D, 2015. Factors limiting vocal-tract length discrimination in cochlear implant simulations. J Acoust Soc Am. 137, 1298-1308. pdf
  51. 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
  52. Lazard, DS, Maat, B, Başkent,D, …, Blamey, PJ, 2015. Multicentric study shows a significant advantage of bilateral implantation compared to bimodal rehabilitation. Ear Hear. 36, 408-416. pdf
  53. Benard, MR, and Başkent, D, 2014. Perceptual learning of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded speech. J Acoust Soc Am 136, 1344-1351. pdf
  54. Fuller, CD, Gaudrain, E, Galvin III, JJ, Clarke, JN, Free, RH, Başkent, D, 2014. Gender categorization is abnormal in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryn 15, 1037-1048. pdf
  55. 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
  56. Fuller, CD, Galvin III, JJ, Free, RH, Maat, B, Başkent, D, 2014. The musician effect: Does it persist under degraded pitch conditions of cochlear implant simulations? Front. Neurosci. 8:179. pdf
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. Fuller, CD, Galvin III, JJ, Free, RH, Başkent, D, 2014. Musician effect in cochlear-implant simulated gender categorization. J Acoust Soc Am 135, EL159-EL165. pdf supplementMM
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. Bhargava, P, Gaudrain, E, and Başkent, D, 2014. Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res 309, 113-123. pdf
  65. Başkent, D, van Rij, J, Ng, ZY, Free, RH, Hendriks, P, 2013. Perception of spectrally degraded reflexives and pronouns by children. J Acoust Soc Am 134, 3844-3852. pdf
  66. Pals, C, Sarampalis, A, Başkent, D, 2013. Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations. J Sp Hear Lang Res 56, 1075-1084. pdf
  67. Fuller, CD, Mallinckrodt, L, Maat, B, Başkent, D, Free, RH, 2013. Music and quality of life in early-deafened late-implanted cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 34, 1041-1047. pdf
  68. Benard, MR, and Başkent, D, 2013. Perceptual learning of interrupted speech. PLoS ONE 8, 558149. pdf
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. Fuller, CD, Maat, B, Free, RH, 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. Başkent, D, and Bazo, D, 2011.  Detection of audio-visual speech asynchrony by hearing-impaired listeners. Ear. Hear. 32, 582-595. pdf
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. Başkent, D, and Edwards, B, 2007. Simulating listener errors in using genetic algorithms for perceptual optimization. J Acoust Soc Am 121, EL238-EL243. pdf
  85. 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
  86. Başkent, D and Shannon, RV, 2007. Combined effects of frequency-place compression-expansion and shift on speech recognition. Ear Hear 28, 277-289. pdf
  87. 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
  88. Başkent, D and Shannon, RV, 2006. Frequency transposition around dead regions simulated with a noiseband vocoder. J Acoust Soc Am 119, 1156-1163. pdf
  89. 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
  90. Başkent, D and Shannon,  RV, 2004. Frequency-place compression and expansion in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116, 3130-3140. pdf
  91. Başkent, D and Shannon,  RV, 2003. Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion. J Acoust Soc Am 113, 2064-2076. pdf
  92. Shannon,  RV, Galvin, JJ, and Başkent, D, 2001. Holes in hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryn 3, 185-199. pdf
  93. 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
  94. Barshan, B and Başkent, D, 2001. Morphological surface profile extraction with multiple range sensors. Pattern Recog 34, 97-105. pdf
  95. 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
  96. Başkent, D and Barshan, B, 1999. Surface profile determination from multiple sonar data using morphological processing. Int J Rob Res 18, 788-808. pdf

Oratie – Inaugural Lecture

  • Oratie – Inaugural Lecture of prof. Başkent, given on 15 April 2014. pdf

PhD theses supervised

  1. Moffat, R, 2022 (promotor, co-promotor: prof. D. McAlpine, co-supervisors: Dr. L. van Yper, Dr. R. Luke). Recognition and cortical haemodynamics of vocal emotions-an fNIRS perspective. link
  2. de Boer, M, 2021 (co-promotor; promotor: Prof. F. Cornelissen). Keeping track of emotions: Audiovisual integration for emotion recognition and compensation for sensory degradations captured by perceptual strategies. link
  3. Nagels, L, 2021 (co-promotor; promotor: Prof. P. Hendriks). From voice to speech: the perception of voice characteristics and speech in children with cochlear implants. link
  4. Saija, JD, 2019 (promotor; co-promotors: Dr. E. Akyürek, Dr. T. Andringa). Temporal integration and healthy ageing. link
  5. El Boghdady, N, 2019 (promotor; co-promotor: Dr. E. Gaudrain). On the color of voices: The relationships between cochlear implant users’ voice cue perception and speech intelligibility in cocktail-party scenarios. link
  6. Clarke, J, 2017 (promotor; co-promotor: Dr. E. Gaudrain). The pitch hunt: The role of vocal characteristics in top-down repair of interrupted speech. pdf link
  7. van Meerveld, B, 2016 (co-promotor; co-promotor: Dr. T. Andringa, promotor: Prof. L. Schomaker; Dept. Artificial Intelligence). Vowel processing in cluttered auditory scenes. pdf
  8. Fuller, CD, 2016 (promotor; co-promotor: Dr. R. Free). The effect of music on auditory perception in cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners. pdf
  9. Pals, C, 2016 (promotor; co-promotor: Dr. A. Sarampalis). Listening effort: The hidden costs and benefits of cochlear implants. pdf
  10. Galvin, JJ, 2016 (promotor; co-promotor: Prof. Q.-J Fu). Perception of amplitude modulation with single or multiple channels in cochlear implant users. pdf
  11. Bhargava, P, 2016 (promotor; co-promotor: Dr. E. Gaudrain). Interrupted speech perception: Top-down restoration in cochlear implant users. pdf
  12. van den Bosch, K, 2015 (co-promotor; promotors: Prof. C. Vlaskamp, Prof. A.J.J.M. Ruijssenaars, co-promotor: Dr. T. Andringa). Safe and sound: Soundscape research in special needs care. pdf
  13. 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. Biçer, A, Koelewijn, T, Başkent, D, 2022. Voice familiarity via training affects listening effort during a voice cue sensitivity task with vocoder degraded speech. 19th International Symposium on Hearing: Psychoacoustics, Physiology of Hearing, and Auditory Modelling, from the Ear to the Brain (ISH2022), Lyon, France. Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6576942
  2. Everhardt, MK, Sarampalis, A, Coler, M, Başkent, D, and Lowie, W, 2022. Interpretation of prosodically marked focus in cochlear implant‐simulated speech by non‐native listeners. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Speech Prosody, 72–76. doi: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2022‐15
  3. Jansen, N, Harding, E, Loerts, H, Başkent, D, & Lowie, W, 2022. The relation between musical ability and sentence-level intonation perception: A meta-analysis comparing L1 and non-native listening. In Proc. Speech Prosody 2022 (pp. 713-717). doi: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2022-145
  4. Everhardt, MK, Sarampalis, A, Coler, M, Başkent, D, and Lowie, W, 2022. Speech prosody: The musical, magical quality of speech. Frontiers for Young Minds, Neuroscience and Psychology. doi: 10.3389/frym.2021.698575
  5. Meyer, L, Araiza-Illan, G, Rachman, L, Gaudrain, E, and Başkent, D, 2021. Perception of a humanoid robot as an interface for auditory testing. Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems – 22nd Annual Conference, TAROS 2021, Proceedings. Fox, C., Gao, J., Ghalamzan Esfahani, A., Saaj, M., Hanheide, M. & Parsons, S. (eds.). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, p. 198-202 5 p. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); vol. 13054 LNAI). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-89177-0_21
  6. Gaudrain, E, Undurraga, J, Grimault, N, & Başkent, D, 2020. Comments on “Differences in common psychoacoustical tasks by sex, menstrual cycle, and race” by D. McFadden et al., 2018, and methodological pitfalls in human population research. link
  7. Everhardt, MK, Sarampalis, A, Coler, M, Başkent, D, and Lowie, W, 2019. Perception of L2 lexical stress in words degraded by a cochlear implant simulation. In S. Calhoun, P. Escudero, M. Tabain, & P. Warren (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019 (pp. 102–106). Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc. link
  8. Kaplan, E,  Başkent, D, and Wagner, A, 2019. Differences in processing speech-on-speech between musicians and non-musicians: The role of prosodic cues. Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics : integrating 4th EAA Euroregio 2019 : 9-13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany / proceedings editors: Martin Ochmann, Michael Vorländer, Janina Fels. link
  9. Kirwan, J, Wagner, A, and Başkent, D, 2019. Pupillary correlates of auditory emotion recognition in older hearing-impaired listeners. Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics: Integrating 4th EAA Euroregio 2019. Ochmann, M., Michael, V. & Fels, J. (eds.). International Commission for Acoustics (ICA)p. 5771-5772.
  10. Cooke, M, King, Simon, Hazan, V, Stylianou, Y, Janse, E, Başkent, D, Hohmann, V, Winneke, A, and Hernaez, I, 2019. Enriched communication across the lifespan. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 63, 175-178.
  11. Nagels, L, Gaudrain, E, Vickers, D, Lopes, MM, Hendriks, P, Başkent, D, 2019. Vocal emotion recognition in school-age children: normative data for the EmoHI test. PeerJ Preprints e27921v1. Presented at VIHAR 2019.
  12. de Boer, M, Başkent, D, Cornelissen, F, 2018. Audio-visual interaction in emotion perception for communication: doctoral symposium, extended abstract. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research. link
  13. Wagner, A, Opie, J, Başkent, D, 2018. Combining pupil dilation and the timing of lexical mapping to track individual differences in speech processing by CI users. Journal of Hearing Science 8 (2). link
  14. Kaplan, E, Wagner, A & Başkent, D, 2018. Are musicians at an advantage when processing speech on speech? In Parncutt, R., & Sattmann, S. (Eds.) (2018). Proceedings of ICMPC15/ESCOM10. Graz, Austria: Centre for Systematic Musicology, University of Graz. link
  15. 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
  16. Başkent, D, 2014. The ear-brain connection in cochlear implant users: learning to listen again. ENT & Audiology News, 23, 94-96. pdf
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Eiler, C, Başkent, D, Recker, K, and Edwards, B, 2008. Genetic algorithms: The future of hearing aid fitting? Hear J 61, 16-21. pdf
  20. 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


  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