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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19163773)

  • 61. 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]  

  • 62. The pitch of electrically presented sinusoids.
    Dorman MF; Smith M; Smith L; Parkin JL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Mar; 95(3):1677-9. PubMed ID: 8176065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Effects of real-time cochlear implant simulation on speech production.
    Casserly ED
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 May; 137(5):2791-800. PubMed ID: 25994707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Preliminary evaluation of a formant enhancement algorithm on the perception of speech in noise for normally hearing listeners.
    Alcántara JI; Dooley GJ; Blamey PJ; Seligman PM
    Audiology; 1994; 33(1):15-27. PubMed ID: 8129677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. A novel speech-processing strategy incorporating tonal information for cochlear implants.
    Lan N; Nie KB; Gao SK; Zeng FG
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2004 May; 51(5):752-60. PubMed ID: 15132501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. A multi-band environment-adaptive approach to noise suppression for cochlear implants.
    Saki F; Mirzahasanloo T; Kehtarnavaz N
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2014; 2014():1699-702. PubMed ID: 25570302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Analysis of voice source characteristics using a constrained polynomial representation of voice source signals.
    Kaburagi T; Kawai K; Abe S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Feb; 121(2):745-8. PubMed ID: 17348497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Theoretical considerations in testing speech perception through electroauditory stimulation.
    Pickett JM
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1983; 405():424-34. PubMed ID: 6223555
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Influence of the band-pass filter configuration on speech perception and patient preference in the Combi-40+ cochlear implants.
    Brockmeier SJ; Baumgartner WD; Steinhoff J; Nopp P; Weisser P; Thurner E; Ebenhoch H; Gedlicka W; Arnold W; Gstöttner W
    Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 2000; 57():405-7. PubMed ID: 11892202
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Effects of contextual cues on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Kong YY; Donaldson G; Somarowthu A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 May; 137(5):2846-57. PubMed ID: 25994712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. [An improved spectral subtraction algorithm applied to speech enhancement in the cochlear implant].
    Sun J; Tian L
    Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi; 2010 Feb; 27(1):188-92. PubMed ID: 20337051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients.
    Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Human temporal auditory acuity as assessed by envelope following responses.
    Purcell DW; John SM; Schneider BA; Picton TW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Dec; 116(6):3581-93. PubMed ID: 15658709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Synthetic two-formant vowel perception by some of the better cochlear-implant patients.
    Tyler RS; Tye-Murray N; Moore BC; McCabe BF
    Audiology; 1989; 28(6):301-15. PubMed ID: 2532003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Evaluation of two algorithms for detecting human frequency-following responses to voice pitch.
    Jeng FC; Hu J; Dickman B; Lin CY; Lin CD; Wang CY; Chung HK; Li X
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):14-26. PubMed ID: 21047294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing.
    Fu QJ; Shannon RV; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Dec; 104(6):3586-96. PubMed ID: 9857517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Emphasis of short-duration acoustic speech cues for cochlear implant users.
    Vandali AE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 May; 109(5 Pt 1):2049-61. PubMed ID: 11386557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Evaluation of Speech Recognition of Cochlear Implant Recipients Using Adaptive, Digital Remote Microphone Technology and a Speech Enhancement Sound Processing Algorithm.
    Wolfe J; Morais M; Schafer E; Agrawal S; Koch D
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 May; 26(5):502-508. PubMed ID: 26055839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. New processing strategies in cochlear implantation.
    Wilson BS; Lawson DT; Zerbi M; Finley CC; Wolford RD
    Am J Otol; 1995 Sep; 16(5):669-75. PubMed ID: 8588675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.