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 *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12398471)

  • 41. Effects of input processing and type of personal frequency modulation system on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants.
    Wolfe J; Schafer E; Parkinson A; John A; Hudson M; Wheeler J; Mucci A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):52-62. PubMed ID: 22941405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Place pitch discrimination and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.
    Hanekom JJ; Shannon RV
    S Afr J Commun Disord; 1996; 43():27-40. PubMed ID: 9265842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Hearing results with deep insertion of cochlear implant electrodes.
    Hodges AV; Villasuso E; Balkany T; Bird PA; Butts S; Lee D; Gomez O
    Am J Otol; 1999 Jan; 20(1):53-5. PubMed ID: 9918173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.
    Debruyne JA; Francart T; Janssen AM; Douma K; Brokx JP
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):174-185. PubMed ID: 27758152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials Recorded From Nucleus Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.
    Brown CJ; Jeon EK; Chiou LK; Kirby B; Karsten SA; Turner CW; Abbas PJ
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):723-32. PubMed ID: 26295607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Intra- and intersubject comparison of cochlear implant systems using the Esprit and the Tempo+ behind-the-ear speech processor.
    Kompis M; Jenk M; Vischer MW; Seifert E; Häusler R
    Int J Audiol; 2002 Dec; 41(8):555-62. PubMed ID: 12477176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Perceptual performance of subjects with cochlear implants using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the Mini Speech Processor (MSP).
    McKay CM; McDermott HJ
    Ear Hear; 1993 Oct; 14(5):350-67. PubMed ID: 8224578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy.
    Stöbich B; Zierhofer CM; Hochmair ES
    Ear Hear; 1999 Apr; 20(2):104-16. PubMed ID: 10229512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor.
    Mertens G; Hofkens A; Punte AK; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
    Otol Neurotol; 2015 Jan; 36(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 25406874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.
    Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    Ear Hear; 1999 Aug; 20(4):332-44. PubMed ID: 10466569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Auditory training with spectrally shifted speech: implications for cochlear implant patient auditory rehabilitation.
    Fu QJ; Nogaki G; Galvin JJ
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 6(2):180-9. PubMed ID: 15952053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Effects of FM-receiver gain on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants.
    Schafer EC; Wolfe J; Lawless T; Stout B
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Apr; 48(4):196-203. PubMed ID: 19363720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Which sensitivity setting should a child use?
    Müller-Deile J
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S101-3. PubMed ID: 9391618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Outcome evaluation on cochlear implant users with residual hearing.
    Neben N; Buechner A; Schuessler M; Lenarz T
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2018 Mar; 19(2):88-99. PubMed ID: 29214896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices.
    Spahr AJ; Dorman MF
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):624-8. PubMed ID: 15148187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. Clinical outcomes with the Kanso™ off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor.
    Mauger SJ; Jones M; Nel E; Del Dot J
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Apr; 56(4):267-276. PubMed ID: 28067077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor.
    Loizou PC; Stickney G; Mishra L; Assmann P
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):12-9. PubMed ID: 12598809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.