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 *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17153721)

  • 1. The effect of intensity on pitch in electric hearing and its relationship to the speech perception performance of cochlear implantees.
    Umat C; McDermott HJ; McKay CM
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2006; 17(10):733-46. PubMed ID: 17153721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.
    Firszt JB; Holden LK; Skinner MW; Tobey EA; Peterson A; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Wackym PA
    Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):375-87. PubMed ID: 15292777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants.
    Skinner MW; Holden LK; Holden TA; Demorest ME; Fourakis MS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Jun; 101(6):3766-82. PubMed ID: 9193063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies.
    Donaldson GS; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Mar; 107(3):1645-58. PubMed ID: 10738818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Loudness ratio production by cochlear implantees using the spectral maxima sound processor.
    McDermott HJ; McKay CM
    Scand Audiol; 1996; 25(2):83-90. PubMed ID: 8738632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Combined electric and acoustic hearing performance with Zebra® speech processor: speech reception, place, and temporal coding evaluation.
    Vaerenberg B; Péan V; Lesbros G; De Ceulaer G; Schauwers K; Daemers K; Gnansia D; Govaerts PJ
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2013 Jun; 14(3):150-7. PubMed ID: 23321588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of hearing aid settings for electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Dillon MT; Buss E; Pillsbury HC; Adunka OF; Buchman CA; Adunka MC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):133-40. PubMed ID: 24828214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Place dependent stimulation rates improve pitch perception in cochlear implantees with single-sided deafness.
    Rader T; Döge J; Adel Y; Weissgerber T; Baumann U
    Hear Res; 2016 Sep; 339():94-103. PubMed ID: 27374479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results.
    Laszig R; Aschendorff A; Stecker M; Müller-Deile J; Maune S; Dillier N; Weber B; Hey M; Begall K; Lenarz T; Battmer RD; Böhm M; Steffens T; Strutz J; Linder T; Probst R; Allum J; Westhofen M; Doering W
    Otol Neurotol; 2004 Nov; 25(6):958-68. PubMed ID: 15547426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study.
    Wolfe J; Parkinson A; Schafer EC; Gilden J; Rehwinkel K; Mansanares J; Coughlan E; Wright J; Torres J; Gannaway S
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jun; 33(4):553-60. PubMed ID: 22588233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Sensitivity to interaural level and envelope time differences of two bilateral cochlear implant listeners using clinical sound processors.
    Laback B; Pok SM; Baumgartner WD; Deutsch WA; Schmid K
    Ear Hear; 2004 Oct; 25(5):488-500. PubMed ID: 15599195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Temporal Fine Structure Processing, Pitch, and Speech Perception in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Dincer D'Alessandro H; Ballantyne D; Boyle PJ; De Seta E; DeVincentiis M; Mancini P
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(4):679-686. PubMed ID: 29194080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.
    Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):227-35. PubMed ID: 10890731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Nucleus 24 advanced encoder conversion study: performance versus preference.
    Skinner MW; Arndt PL; Staller SJ
    Ear Hear; 2002 Feb; 23(1 Suppl):2S-17S. PubMed ID: 11883765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients.
    Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Evaluation of the Optimized Pitch and Language Strategy in Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Vandali A; Dawson P; Au A; Yu Y; Brown M; Goorevich M; Cowan R
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(3):555-567. PubMed ID: 30067558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.