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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14663353)

  • 1. Residual speech perception and cochlear implant performance in postlingually deafened adults.
    Gomaa NA; Rubinstein JT; Lowder MW; Tyler RS; Gantz BJ
    Ear Hear; 2003 Dec; 24(6):539-44. PubMed ID: 14663353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria.
    Rubinstein JT; Parkinson WS; Tyler RS; Gantz BJ
    Am J Otol; 1999 Jul; 20(4):445-52. PubMed ID: 10431885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cochlear implantation in late-implanted prelingually deafened adults: changes in quality of life.
    Straatman LV; Huinck WJ; Langereis MC; Snik AF; Mulder JJ
    Otol Neurotol; 2014 Feb; 35(2):253-9. PubMed ID: 24448285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users?
    Capretta NR; Moberly AC
    Laryngoscope; 2016 Mar; 126(3):699-706. PubMed ID: 26256441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cochlear implantation outcome in prelingually deafened young adults. A speech perception study.
    Santarelli R; De Filippi R; Genovese E; Arslan E
    Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(4):257-65. PubMed ID: 18259078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Speech coding strategies and revised cochlear implant candidacy: an analysis of post-implant performance.
    David EE; Ostroff JM; Shipp D; Nedzelski JM; Chen JM; Parnes LS; Zimmerman K; Schramm D; Seguin C
    Otol Neurotol; 2003 Mar; 24(2):228-33. PubMed ID: 12621337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.
    Gifford RH; Shallop JK; Peterson AM
    Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(3):193-205. PubMed ID: 18212519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Amplitude Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition in Late-Implanted Prelingually and Postlingually Deafened Cochlear Implant Users.
    De Ruiter AM; Debruyne JA; Chenault MN; Francart T; Brokx JP
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(5):557-66. PubMed ID: 25851075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech intelligibility as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Beers M; Boermans PP; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):445-58. PubMed ID: 21258238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of residual speech and auditory deprivation on speech perception of adult cochlear implant recipients.
    Derinsu U; Yüksel M; Geçici CR; Çiprut A; Akdeniz E
    Auris Nasus Larynx; 2019 Feb; 46(1):58-63. PubMed ID: 29945747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Cochlear implant for non-deaf patients?].
    Müller-Deile J; Rudert H; Brademann G; Frese K
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1998 Mar; 77(3):136-43. PubMed ID: 9577819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Genetic variants in the peripheral auditory system significantly affect adult cochlear implant performance.
    Shearer AE; Eppsteiner RW; Frees K; Tejani V; Sloan-Heggen CM; Brown C; Abbas P; Dunn C; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Smith RJH
    Hear Res; 2017 May; 348():138-142. PubMed ID: 28213135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects.
    Zwolan TA; Collins LM; Wakefield GH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Dec; 102(6):3673-85. PubMed ID: 9407659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance.
    Friedland DR; Venick HS; Niparko JK
    Otol Neurotol; 2003 Jul; 24(4):582-9. PubMed ID: 12851549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Speech perception performance as a function of age at implantation among postlingually deaf adult cochlear implant recipients.
    Mahmoud AF; Ruckenstein MJ
    Otol Neurotol; 2014 Dec; 35(10):e286-91. PubMed ID: 25226375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effects of residual hearing in traditional cochlear implant candidates after implantation with a conventional electrode.
    Cosetti MK; Friedmann DR; Zhu BZ; Heman-Ackah SE; Fang Y; Keller RG; Shapiro WH; Roland JT; Waltzman SB
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Apr; 34(3):516-21. PubMed ID: 23449440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech perception results for children with implants with different levels of preoperative residual hearing.
    Cowan RS; DelDot J; Barker EJ; Sarant JZ; Pegg P; Dettman S; Galvin KL; Rance G; Hollow R; Dowell RC; Pyman B; Gibson WP; Clark GM
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S125-6. PubMed ID: 9391629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A predictive model of cochlear implant performance in postlingually deafened adults.
    Roditi RE; Poissant SF; Bero EM; Lee DJ
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Jun; 30(4):449-54. PubMed ID: 19415041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Smulders YE; van Zon A; Stegeman I; Rinia AB; Van Zanten GA; Stokroos RJ; Hendrice N; Free RH; Maat B; Frijns JH; Briaire JJ; Mylanus EA; Huinck WJ; Smit AL; Topsakal V; Tange RA; Grolman W
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2016 Mar; 142(3):249-56. PubMed ID: 26796630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Central effects of residual hearing: implications for choice of ear for cochlear implantation.
    Francis HW; Yeagle JD; Brightwell T; Venick H
    Laryngoscope; 2004 Oct; 114(10):1747-52. PubMed ID: 15454765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.