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 *

381 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15101651)

  • 1. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing.
    Turner CW; Gantz BJ; Vidal C; Behrens A; Henry BA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Apr; 115(4):1729-35. PubMed ID: 15101651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant.
    Dunn CC; Perreau A; Gantz B; Tyler RS
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2010 Jan; 21(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 20085199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects.
    Cullington HE; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Jan; 123(1):450-61. PubMed ID: 18177173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Pre- and Postoperative Binaural Unmasking for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):554-567. PubMed ID: 28301390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise.
    Gfeller K; Turner C; Oleson J; Zhang X; Gantz B; Froman R; Olszewski C
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):412-23. PubMed ID: 17485990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing.
    Kong YY; Stickney GS; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Mar; 117(3 Pt 1):1351-61. PubMed ID: 15807023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Standard cochlear implantation of adults with residual low-frequency hearing: implications for combined electro-acoustic stimulation.
    Novak MA; Black JM; Koch DB
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):609-14. PubMed ID: 17514064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception.
    Nie K; Barco A; Zeng FG
    Ear Hear; 2006 Apr; 27(2):208-17. PubMed ID: 16518146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Impact of low-frequency hearing.
    Büchner A; Schüssler M; Battmer RD; Stöver T; Lesinski-Schiedat A; Lenarz T
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():8-13. PubMed ID: 19390170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Impact of hair cell preservation in cochlear implantation: combined electric and acoustic hearing.
    Turner CW; Gantz BJ; Karsten S; Fowler J; Reiss LA
    Otol Neurotol; 2010 Oct; 31(8):1227-32. PubMed ID: 20802370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acoustic-electric stimulation.
    Simpson A; McDermott HJ; Dowell RC; Sucher C; Briggs RJ
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Feb; 48(2):63-73. PubMed ID: 19219690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
    Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech perception in individuals with auditory neuropathy.
    Zeng FG; Liu S
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):367-80. PubMed ID: 16671850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cochlear implantation with the nucleus slim straight electrode in subjects with residual low-frequency hearing.
    Skarzynski H; Lorens A; Matusiak M; Porowski M; Skarzynski PH; James CJ
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):e33-43. PubMed ID: 24556970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Speech Perception With Combined Electric-Acoustic Stimulation: A Simulation and Model Comparison.
    Rader T; Adel Y; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):e314-25. PubMed ID: 25989069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.
    Gifford RH; Davis TJ; Sunderhaus LW; Menapace C; Buck B; Crosson J; O'Neill L; Beiter A; Segel P
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):539-553. PubMed ID: 28301392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.