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 *

287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17604582)

  • 21. Comparisons of quality ratings for music by cochlear implant and hearing aid users.
    Looi V; McDermott H; McKay C; Hickson L
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):59S-61S. PubMed ID: 17496649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.
    McDermott H; Sucher C; Simpson A
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():2-7. PubMed ID: 19390169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing.
    Kong YY; Cruz R; Jones JA; Zeng FG
    Ear Hear; 2004 Apr; 25(2):173-85. PubMed ID: 15064662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Music to electric ears: pitch and timbre perception by cochlear implant patients.
    Pressnitzer D; Bestel J; Fraysse B
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 2005 Dec; 1060():343-5. PubMed ID: 16597784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. BKB-SIN and ANL predict perceived communication ability in cochlear implant users.
    Donaldson GS; Chisolm TH; Blasco GP; Shinnick LJ; Ketter KJ; Krause JC
    Ear Hear; 2009 Aug; 30(4):401-10. PubMed ID: 19390441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing.
    Peng SC; Tomblin JB; Turner CW
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):336-51. PubMed ID: 18344873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.
    Stohl JS; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Music perception by cochlear implant and normal hearing listeners as measured by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia.
    Cooper WB; Tobey E; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2008 Aug; 29(4):618-26. PubMed ID: 18469714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Enhancement of temporal cues to pitch in cochlear implants: effects on pitch ranking.
    Vandali AE; van Hoesel RJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jul; 132(1):392-402. PubMed ID: 22779486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of a Test Battery to Assess Perception of Music in Children With Cochlear Implants.
    Roy AT; Scattergood-Keepper L; Carver C; Jiradejvong P; Butler C; Limb CJ
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2014 Jun; 140(6):540-7. PubMed ID: 24722833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Preattentive cortical-evoked responses to pure tones, harmonic tones, and speech: influence of music training.
    Nikjeh DA; Lister JJ; Frisch SA
    Ear Hear; 2009 Aug; 30(4):432-46. PubMed ID: 19494778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Auditory stream segregation of tone sequences in cochlear implant listeners.
    Cooper HR; Roberts B
    Hear Res; 2007 Mar; 225(1-2):11-24. PubMed ID: 17257790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Interaction Between Pitch and Timbre Perception in Normal-Hearing Listeners and Cochlear Implant Users.
    Luo X; Soslowsky S; Pulling KR
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2019 Feb; 20(1):57-72. PubMed ID: 30377852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Free field frequency discrimination abilities of cochlear implant users.
    Pretorius LL; Hanekom JJ
    Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 244(1-2):77-84. PubMed ID: 18692556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Place-Pitch Interval Perception With a Cochlear Implant.
    Stupak N; Todd AE; Landsberger DM
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(2):301-312. PubMed ID: 33606415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The effects of musical and linguistic components in recognition of real-world musical excerpts by cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults.
    Gfeller K; Jiang D; Oleson JJ; Driscoll V; Olszewski C; Knutson JF; Turner C; Gantz B
    J Music Ther; 2012; 49(1):68-101. PubMed ID: 22803258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effect of filter spacing on melody recognition: acoustic and electric hearing.
    Kasturi K; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):EL29-34. PubMed ID: 17672526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The MuSIC perception test: a novel battery for testing music perception of cochlear implant users.
    Brockmeier SJ; Fitzgerald D; Searle O; Fitzgerald H; Grasmeder M; Hilbig S; Vermiere K; Peterreins M; Heydner S; Arnold W
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2011 Feb; 12(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 21756454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.