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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11688546)

  • 1. Effects of the acoustical dynamic range on speech recognition with cochlear implants.
    Cosendai G; Pelizzone M
    Audiology; 2001; 40(5):272-81. PubMed ID: 11688546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.
    Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):227-35. PubMed ID: 10890731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
    Zeng FG; Galvin JJ
    Ear Hear; 1999 Feb; 20(1):60-74. PubMed ID: 10037066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Speech recognition under conditions of frequency-place compression and expansion.
    Baskent D; Shannon RV
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2064-76. PubMed ID: 12703717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users II: comparison among speech perception, dynamic range, and physiological measures.
    Firszt JB; Chambers And RD; Kraus N
    Ear Hear; 2002 Dec; 23(6):516-31. PubMed ID: 12476089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance.
    Zeng FG; Grant G; Niparko J; Galvin J; Shannon R; Opie J; Segel P
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Jan; 111(1 Pt 1):377-86. PubMed ID: 11831811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users.
    Hochberg I; Boothroyd A; Weiss M; Hellman S
    Ear Hear; 1992 Aug; 13(4):263-71. PubMed ID: 1397769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech-evoked cortical potentials and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.
    Groenen PA; Beynon AJ; Snik AF; van den Broek P
    Scand Audiol; 2001; 30(1):31-40. PubMed ID: 11330917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users.
    Vandali AE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 May; 109(5 Pt 1):2049-61. PubMed ID: 11386557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of speech perception performance between Sprint/Esprit 3G and Freedom processors in children implanted with nucleus cochlear implants.
    Santarelli R; Magnavita V; De Filippi R; Ventura L; Genovese E; Arslan E
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):304-12. PubMed ID: 19225440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cortical reorganization after cochlear implantation for adults with single-sided deafness.
    Legris E; Galvin J; Roux S; Gomot M; Aoustin JM; Marx M; He S; Bakhos D
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(9):e0204402. PubMed ID: 30248131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Speech perception by prelingually deaf children using cochlear implants.
    Tyler RS; Fryauf-Bertschy H; Kelsay DM; Gantz BJ; Woodworth GP; Parkinson A
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 1997 Sep; 117(3 Pt 1):180-7. PubMed ID: 9334763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing.
    Gantz BJ; Turner C; Gfeller KE; Lowder MW
    Laryngoscope; 2005 May; 115(5):796-802. PubMed ID: 15867642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Electrical dynamic range is only weakly associated with auditory performance and speech recognition in long-term users of cochlear implants.
    Kim SY; Jeon SK; Oh SH; Lee JH; Suh MW; Lee SY; Lim HJ; Park MK
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2018 Aug; 111():170-173. PubMed ID: 29958604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effect of reduced dynamic range on speech understanding: implications for patients with cochlear implants.
    Loizou PC; Dorman M; Fitzke J
    Ear Hear; 2000 Feb; 21(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 10708071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping.
    Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Aug; 106(2):L18-23. PubMed ID: 10462822
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects.
    Throckmorton CS; Collins LM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Feb; 105(2 Pt 1):861-73. PubMed ID: 9972571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.
    Donaldson GS; Kreft HA
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):658-77. PubMed ID: 17086077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.