BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

858 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17485986)

  • 1. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    Başkent D; Eiler CL; Edwards B
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):370-80. PubMed ID: 17485986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.
    Plant K; Holden L; Skinner M; Arcaroli J; Whitford L; Law MA; Nel E
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):381-93. PubMed ID: 17485987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
    Boyd PJ
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The influence of different speech processor and hearing aid settings on speech perception outcomes in electric acoustic stimulation patients.
    Vermeire K; Anderson I; Flynn M; Van de Heyning P
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jan; 29(1):76-86. PubMed ID: 18091097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with cochlear implants.
    Fitzpatrick EM; Séguin C; Schramm DR; Armstrong S; Chénier J
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):590-9. PubMed ID: 19561509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Combined effects of frequency compression-expansion and shift on speech recognition.
    Başkent D; Shannon RV
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):277-89. PubMed ID: 17485977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The design and evaluation of a hearing aid with trainable amplification parameters.
    Zakis JA; Dillon H; McDermott HJ
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):812-30. PubMed ID: 17982368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
    Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.
    Donaldson GS; Kreft HA
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):658-77. PubMed ID: 17086077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Horizontal-plane localization of noise and speech signals by postlingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Ricketts TA; Labadie RF; Haynes DS
    Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):524-41. PubMed ID: 17609614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Acclimatization in first-time hearing aid users using three different fitting protocols.
    Reber MB; Kompis M
    Auris Nasus Larynx; 2005 Dec; 32(4):345-51. PubMed ID: 16039083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Simulating listener errors in using genetic algorithms for perceptual optimization.
    Başkent D; Edwards B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Jun; 121(6):EL238-43. PubMed ID: 17552575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids.
    Davidson LS
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):493-507. PubMed ID: 16957500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
    Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of noise source configuration on directional benefit using symmetric and asymmetric directional hearing aid fittings.
    Hornsby BW; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 17496669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 43.