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 *

78 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14696993)

  • 1. The effect of short-term auditory deprivation on the control of intraoral pressure in pediatric cochlear implant users.
    Jones DL; Gao S; Svirsky MA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2003 Jun; 46(3):658-69. PubMed ID: 14696993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Altered phonatory physiology with short-term deactivation of children's cochlear implants.
    Higgins MB; McCleary EA; Schulte L
    Ear Hear; 1999 Oct; 20(5):426-38. PubMed ID: 10526865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Spectro-temporal cues enhance modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
    Zheng Y; Escabí M; Litovsky RY
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():45-54. PubMed ID: 28601530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Vowel intelligibility in children with cochlear implants: An acoustic and articulatory study.
    Turgeon C; Trudeau-Fisette P; Fitzpatrick E; Ménard L
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2017 Oct; 101():87-96. PubMed ID: 28964317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Acoustic and perceptual appraisal of speech production in pediatric cochlear implant users.
    Poissant SF; Peters KA; Robb MP
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2006 Jul; 70(7):1195-203. PubMed ID: 16460814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech enhancement based on neural networks improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implant users.
    Goehring T; Bolner F; Monaghan JJ; van Dijk B; Zarowski A; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():183-194. PubMed ID: 27913315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Cortical reorganization in postlingually deaf cochlear implant users: Intra-modal and cross-modal considerations.
    Stropahl M; Chen LC; Debener S
    Hear Res; 2017 Jan; 343():128-137. PubMed ID: 27473503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Ideal time-frequency masking algorithms lead to different speech intelligibility and quality in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
    Koning R; Madhu N; Wouters J
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2015 Jan; 62(1):331-41. PubMed ID: 25167542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Early prelingual auditory development and speech perception at 1-year follow-up in Mandarin-speaking children after cochlear implantation.
    Zheng Y; Soli SD; Tao Y; Xu K; Meng Z; Li G; Wang K; Zheng H
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2011 Nov; 75(11):1418-26. PubMed ID: 21893351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Speech perception in Mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants: A systematic review.
    Chen Y; Wong LLN
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S7-S16. PubMed ID: 28296526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A Comparison of Persian Vowel Production in Hearing-Impaired Children Using a Cochlear Implant and Normal-Hearing Children.
    Jafari N; Drinnan M; Mohamadi R; Yadegari F; Nourbakhsh M; Torabinezhad F
    J Voice; 2016 May; 30(3):340-4. PubMed ID: 25990321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of congruent and incongruent visual cues on speech perception and brain activity in cochlear implant users.
    Song JJ; Lee HJ; Kang H; Lee DS; Chang SO; Oh SH
    Brain Struct Funct; 2015 Mar; 220(2):1109-25. PubMed ID: 24402676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evidence-based guidelines for recommending cochlear implantation for young children: Audiological criteria and optimizing age at implantation.
    Leigh JR; Dettman SJ; Dowell RC
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S9-S18. PubMed ID: 27142630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
    Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
    Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Spectral contrast enhancement improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implants.
    Nogueira W; Rode T; Büchner A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):728-39. PubMed ID: 26936556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Auditory Perception and Production of Speech Feature Contrasts by Pediatric Implant Users.
    Mahshie J; Core C; Larsen MD
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):653-63. PubMed ID: 26035142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech intelligibility and subjective benefit in single-sided deaf adults after cochlear implantation.
    Finke M; Strauß-Schier A; Kludt E; Büchner A; Illg A
    Hear Res; 2017 May; 348():112-119. PubMed ID: 28286233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.