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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18556160)

  • 1. Simulating the effect of spread of excitation in cochlear implants.
    Bingabr M; Espinoza-Varas B; Loizou PC
    Hear Res; 2008 Jul; 241(1-2):73-9. PubMed ID: 18556160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Simulating the dual-peak excitation pattern produced by bipolar stimulation of a cochlear implant: effects on speech intelligibility.
    Mesnildrey Q; Macherey O
    Hear Res; 2015 Jan; 319():32-47. PubMed ID: 25449010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. An analysis of the effects of electrical field interaction with an acoustic model of cochlear implants.
    Strydom T; Hanekom JJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Apr; 129(4):2213-26. PubMed ID: 21476676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Vocoder simulations of highly focused cochlear stimulation with limited dynamic range and discriminable steps.
    Stafford RC; Stafford JW; Wells JD; Loizou PC; Keller MD
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):262-70. PubMed ID: 24322978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pulse-spreading harmonic complex as an alternative carrier for vocoder simulations of cochlear implants.
    Mesnildrey Q; Hilkhuysen G; Macherey O
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):986-91. PubMed ID: 26936577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
    Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing.
    Fu QJ; Nogaki G
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2005 Mar; 6(1):19-27. PubMed ID: 15735937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech Understanding With Various Maskers in Cochlear-Implant and Simulated Cochlear-Implant Hearing: Effects of Spectral Resolution and Implications for Masking Release.
    Croghan NBH; Smith ZM
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518787276. PubMed ID: 30022730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations.
    Berenstein CK; Mens LH; Mulder JJ; Vanpoucke FJ
    Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):250-60. PubMed ID: 18595189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Factors affecting predicted speech intelligibility with cochlear implants in an auditory model for electrical stimulation.
    Fredelake S; Hohmann V
    Hear Res; 2012 May; 287(1-2):76-90. PubMed ID: 22465681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cochlear implant simulator with independent representation of the full spiral ganglion.
    Grange JA; Culling JF; Harris NSL; Bergfeld S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):EL484. PubMed ID: 29195445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The performance of different synthesis signals in acoustic models of cochlear implants.
    Strydom T; Hanekom JJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Feb; 129(2):920-33. PubMed ID: 21361449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Adding simultaneous stimulating channels to reduce power consumption in cochlear implants.
    Langner F; Saoji AA; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 345():96-107. PubMed ID: 28104408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners.
    Litvak LM; Spahr AJ; Saoji AA; Fridman GY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):982-91. PubMed ID: 17672646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A computational study to model the effect of electrode-to-auditory nerve fiber distance on spectral resolution in cochlear implant.
    Yang H; Won JH; Choi I; Woo J
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0236784. PubMed ID: 32745116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Band importance functions of listeners with cochlear implants using clinical maps.
    Bosen AK; Chatterjee M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Nov; 140(5):3718. PubMed ID: 27908046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reducing Simulated Channel Interaction Reveals Differences in Phoneme Identification Between Children and Adults With Normal Hearing.
    Jahn KN; DiNino M; Arenberg JG
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(2):295-311. PubMed ID: 29927780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.