These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11296939)

  • 1. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system.
    Kiefer J; Hohl S; Stürzebecher E; Pfennigdorff T; Gstöettner W
    Audiology; 2001; 40(1):32-42. PubMed ID: 11296939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Nucleus 24 advanced encoder conversion study: performance versus preference.
    Skinner MW; Arndt PL; Staller SJ
    Ear Hear; 2002 Feb; 23(1 Suppl):2S-17S. PubMed ID: 11883765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults.
    Skinner MW; Holden LK; Whitford LA; Plant KL; Psarros C; Holden TA
    Ear Hear; 2002 Jun; 23(3):207-23. PubMed ID: 12072613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of different speech coding strategies using a disability-based inventory and speech perception tests in quiet and in noise.
    Beynon AJ; Snik AF; van den Broek P
    Otol Neurotol; 2003 May; 24(3):392-6. PubMed ID: 12806290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Conversion from the SPEAK to the ACE strategy in children using the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception and speech production outcomes.
    Psarros CE; Plant KL; Lee K; Decker JA; Whitford LA; Cowan RS
    Ear Hear; 2002 Feb; 23(1 Suppl):18S-27S. PubMed ID: 11885571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results.
    Parkinson AJ; Arcaroli J; Staller SJ; Arndt PL; Cosgriff A; Ebinger K
    Ear Hear; 2002 Feb; 23(1 Suppl):41S-48S. PubMed ID: 11883766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of Mandarin tone and speech perception between advanced combination encoder and continuous interleaved sampling speech-processing strategies in children.
    Hwang CF; Chen HC; Yang CH; Peng JP; Weng CH
    Am J Otolaryngol; 2012; 33(3):338-44. PubMed ID: 21982716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.
    Plant K; Holden L; Skinner M; Arcaroli J; Whitford L; Law MA; Nel E
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):381-93. PubMed ID: 17485987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech perception with the ACE and the SPEAK speech coding strategies for children implanted with the Nucleus cochlear implant.
    Manrique M; Huarte A; Morera C; Caballé L; Ramos A; Castillo C; García-Ibáñez L; Estrada E; Juan E
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2005 Dec; 69(12):1667-74. PubMed ID: 16168497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of speech perception benefits with SPEAK and ACE coding strategies in pediatric Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant recipients.
    Pasanisi E; Bacciu A; Vincenti V; Guida M; Berghenti MT; Barbot A; Panu F; Bacciu S
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2002 Jun; 64(2):159-63. PubMed ID: 12049828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of speech processing strategy on Chinese tone recognition by nucleus-24 cochlear implant users.
    Fu QJ; Hsu CJ; Horng MJ
    Ear Hear; 2004 Oct; 25(5):501-8. PubMed ID: 15599196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy.
    Holden LK; Skinner MW; Holden TA; Demorest ME
    Ear Hear; 2002 Oct; 23(5):463-76. PubMed ID: 12411779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Stille LJ
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):435-52. PubMed ID: 18344869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using Neural Response Telemetry to Monitor Physiological Responses to Acoustic Stimulation in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.
    Abbas PJ; Tejani VD; Scheperle RA; Brown CJ
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(4):409-425. PubMed ID: 28085738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies.
    Donaldson GS; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Mar; 107(3):1645-58. PubMed ID: 10738818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effects of processor strategy on the speech perception performance of pediatric nucleus multichannel cochlear implant users.
    Sehgal ST; Kirk KI; Svirsky M; Miyamoto RT
    Ear Hear; 1998 Apr; 19(2):149-61. PubMed ID: 9562537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Electrically evoked amplitude modulation following response in cochlear implant candidates: comparison with auditory nerve response telemetry, subjective electrical stimulation, and speech perception.
    Hirschfelder A; Gräbel S; Olze H
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Aug; 33(6):968-75. PubMed ID: 22772009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Speech processing strategy preferences among 55 European CLARION cochlear implant users.
    Stollwerck LE; Goodrum-Clarke K; Lynch C; Armstrong-Bednall G; Nunn T; Markoff L; Mens L; McAnallen C; Wei J; Boyle P; George C; Zilberman Y
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 2001; (52):36-8. PubMed ID: 11318477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Auditory Performance and Electrical Stimulation Measures in Cochlear Implant Recipients With Auditory Neuropathy Compared With Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
    Attias J; Greenstein T; Peled M; Ulanovski D; Wohlgelernter J; Raveh E
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(2):184-193. PubMed ID: 28225734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech recognition by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners as a function of intensity resolution.
    Loizou PC; Dorman M; Poroy O; Spahr T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Nov; 108(5 Pt 1):2377-87. PubMed ID: 11108378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.