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 *

468 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15148187)

  • 41. Results from a psychoacoustic model-based strategy for the nucleus-24 and freedom cochlear implants.
    Büchner A; Nogueira W; Edler B; Battmer RD; Lenarz T
    Otol Neurotol; 2008 Feb; 29(2):189-92. PubMed ID: 18223445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. A comparison of the growth of open-set speech perception between the nucleus 22 and nucleus 24 cochlear implant systems.
    Waltzman SB; Cohen NL; Roland JT
    Am J Otol; 1999 Jul; 20(4):435-41. PubMed ID: 10431883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise.
    Nie K; Stickney G; Zeng FG
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2005 Jan; 52(1):64-73. PubMed ID: 15651565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Comparison of Mandarin tone and speech perception between advanced combination encoder and continuous interleaved sampling speech-processing strategies in children.
    Hwang CF; Chen HC; Yang CH; Peng JP; Weng CH
    Am J Otolaryngol; 2012; 33(3):338-44. PubMed ID: 21982716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant.
    Skarzynski H; Lorens A; Matusiak M; Porowski M; Skarzynski PH; James CJ
    Audiol Neurootol; 2012; 17(2):82-91. PubMed ID: 21846981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Effects of Threshold Adjustment on Speech Perception in Nucleus Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Busby PA; Arora K
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):303-11. PubMed ID: 26671316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Cochlear implants for children with significant residual hearing.
    Dettman SJ; D'Costa WA; Dowell RC; Winton EJ; Hill KL; Williams SS
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):612-8. PubMed ID: 15148185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in adults with prelingual deafness.
    Klop WM; Briaire JJ; Stiggelbout AM; Frijns JH
    Laryngoscope; 2007 Nov; 117(11):1982-7. PubMed ID: 17767086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Communication abilities of children with aided residual hearing: comparison with cochlear implant users.
    Eisenberg LS; Kirk KI; Martinez AS; Ying EA; Miyamoto RT
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):563-9. PubMed ID: 15148177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
    Galvin KL; Mok M; Dowell RC
    Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):470-82. PubMed ID: 17609610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users.
    Hersbach AA; Arora K; Mauger SJ; Dawson PW
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(4):e13-23. PubMed ID: 22555182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Initial clinical experience with a totally implantable cochlear implant research device.
    Briggs RJ; Eder HC; Seligman PM; Cowan RS; Plant KL; Dalton J; Money DK; Patrick JF
    Otol Neurotol; 2008 Feb; 29(2):114-9. PubMed ID: 17898671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Outcomes for cochlear implant users with significant residual hearing: implications for selection criteria in children.
    Dowell RC; Hollow R; Winton E
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):575-81. PubMed ID: 15148179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Implication of central asymmetry in speech processing on selecting the ear for cochlear implantation.
    Morris LG; Mallur PS; Roland JT; Waltzman SB; Lalwani AK
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Jan; 28(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 17195742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Speech discrimination via cochlear implants with two different digital speech processing strategies: preliminary results for 7 patients.
    Dillier N; Bögli H; Spillmann T
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():145-53. PubMed ID: 8153560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience.
    Whitmal NA; Poissant SF; Freyman RL; Helfer KS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Oct; 122(4):2376-88. PubMed ID: 17902872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. [Speech discrimination in noise for patients with cochlear implants].
    Hamzavi J; Adunka O; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W
    Wien Klin Wochenschr; 2000 Jun; 112(11):498-504. PubMed ID: 10890128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation.
    Geers AE
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):634-8. PubMed ID: 15148189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.