638 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17898671)
1. 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]
2. Otologics fully implantable hearing system: Phase I trial 1-year results.
Jenkins HA; Atkins JS; Horlbeck D; Hoffer ME; Balough B; Alexiades G; Garvis W
Otol Neurotol; 2008 Jun; 29(4):534-41. PubMed ID: 18317397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Comparison of speech perception performance between Sprint/Esprit 3G and Freedom processors in children implanted with nucleus cochlear implants.
Santarelli R; Magnavita V; De Filippi R; Ventura L; Genovese E; Arslan E
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):304-12. PubMed ID: 19225440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Speech perception comparisons using an implanted and an external microphone in existing cochlear implant users.
Jenkins HA; Uhler K
Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jan; 33(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 22158017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The Clarion Multi-Strategy Cochlear Implant--surgical technique, complications, and results: a single institutional experience.
Lalwani AK; Larky JB; Wareing MJ; Kwast K; Schindler RA
Am J Otol; 1998 Jan; 19(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 9455952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Effect of preoperative residual hearing on speech perception after cochlear implantation.
Adunka OF; Buss E; Clark MS; Pillsbury HC; Buchman CA
Laryngoscope; 2008 Nov; 118(11):2044-9. PubMed ID: 18813141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Hybrid cochlear implantation: clinical results and critical review in 13 cases.
Luetje CM; Thedinger BS; Buckler LR; Dawson KL; Lisbona KL
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Jun; 28(4):473-8. PubMed ID: 17529849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effect of front-end processing on cochlear implant performance of children.
Wolfe J; Schafer EC; John A; Hudson M
Otol Neurotol; 2011 Jun; 32(4):533-8. PubMed ID: 21436756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Partial deafness cochlear implantation provides benefit to a new population of individuals with hearing loss.
Skarzynski H; Lorens A; Piotrowska A; Anderson I
Acta Otolaryngol; 2006 Sep; 126(9):934-40. PubMed ID: 16864490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Cochlear implant outcomes in adults and adolescents with early-onset hearing loss.
Caposecco A; Hickson L; Pedley K
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):209-20. PubMed ID: 21934504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
