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 *

436 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18212519)

  • 1. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.
    Gifford RH; Shallop JK; Peterson AM
    Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(3):193-205. PubMed ID: 18212519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability.
    Koch DB; Osberger MJ; Segel P; Kessler D
    Audiol Neurootol; 2004; 9(4):214-23. PubMed ID: 15205549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Cochlear implant for non-deaf patients?].
    Müller-Deile J; Rudert H; Brademann G; Frese K
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1998 Mar; 77(3):136-43. PubMed ID: 9577819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Wolfe J; Baker S; Caraway T; Kasulis H; Mears A; Smith J; Swim L; Wood M
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):589-96. PubMed ID: 17667768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cochlear implantation outcome in prelingually deafened young adults. A speech perception study.
    Santarelli R; De Filippi R; Genovese E; Arslan E
    Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(4):257-65. PubMed ID: 18259078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.
    Mok M; Grayden D; Dowell RC; Lawrence D
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):338-51. PubMed ID: 16671848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Perception of speech by prelingual pre-adolescent and adolescent cochlear implant users.
    Shpak T; Koren L; Tzach N; Most T; Luntz M
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Nov; 48(11):775-83. PubMed ID: 19951145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Companding to improve cochlear-implant speech recognition in speech-shaped noise.
    Bhattacharya A; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1079-89. PubMed ID: 17672655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Speech recognition for unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant modes in the presence of uncorrelated noise sources.
    Ricketts TA; Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Haynes DS; Labadie RF
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):763-73. PubMed ID: 17086085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.