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 *

318 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19173112)

  • 1. The perception of prosody and speaker gender in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant recipients.
    Meister H; Landwehr M; Pyschny V; Walger M; von Wedel H
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Jan; 48(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 19173112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Advantage of bimodal fitting in prosody perception for children using a cochlear implant and a hearing aid.
    Straatman LV; Rietveld AC; Beijen J; Mylanus EA; Mens LH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Oct; 128(4):1884-95. PubMed ID: 20968360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise.
    Van Zyl M; Hanekom JJ
    J Commun Disord; 2013; 46(5-6):449-64. PubMed ID: 24157128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The perception of sentence stress in cochlear implant recipients.
    Meister H; Landwehr M; Pyschny V; Wagner P; Walger M
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):459-67. PubMed ID: 21187749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Use of Voice Cues for Speaker Gender Recognition in Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Meister H; Fürsen K; Streicher B; Lang-Roth R; Walger M
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2016 Jun; 59(3):546-56. PubMed ID: 27135985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech prosody perception in cochlear implant users with and without residual hearing.
    Marx M; James C; Foxton J; Capber A; Fraysse B; Barone P; Deguine O
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(2):239-48. PubMed ID: 25303861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees.
    Gnansia D; Pressnitzer D; Péan V; Meyer B; Lorenzi C
    Hear Res; 2010 Jun; 265(1-2):46-53. PubMed ID: 20197084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Weighting of cues for fricative place of articulation perception by children wearing cochlear implants.
    Hedrick M; Bahng J; von Hapsburg D; Younger MS
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):540-7. PubMed ID: 21604957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Fundamental frequency information for speech recognition via bimodal stimulation: cochlear implant in one ear and hearing aid in the other.
    Shpak T; Most T; Luntz M
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(1):97-109. PubMed ID: 24141594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of various electrode configurations on music perception, intonation and speaker gender identification.
    Landwehr M; Fürstenberg D; Walger M; von Wedel H; Meister H
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 Jan; 15(1):27-35. PubMed ID: 23684531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The perception of intonation questions and statements in Cantonese.
    Ma JK; Ciocca V; Whitehill TL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Feb; 129(2):1012-23. PubMed ID: 21361457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of cochlear implantation on music perception by adults with usable pre-operative acoustic hearing.
    Looi V; McDermott H; McKay C; Hickson L
    Int J Audiol; 2008 May; 47(5):257-68. PubMed ID: 18465410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: contributions of static and dynamic spectral cues.
    Donaldson GS; Rogers CL; Cardenas ES; Russell BA; Hanna NH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3021-8. PubMed ID: 24116437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Musical background not associated with self-perceived hearing performance or speech perception in postlingual cochlear-implant users.
    Fuller C; Free R; Maat B; Başkent D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):1009-16. PubMed ID: 22894221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Development of a speaker discrimination test for cochlear implant users based on the Oldenburg Logatome corpus.
    Mühler R; Ziese M; Rostalski D
    ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2009; 71(1):14-20. PubMed ID: 18946229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. What breaks a melody: perceiving F0 and intensity sequences with a cochlear implant.
    Cousineau M; Demany L; Meyer B; Pressnitzer D
    Hear Res; 2010 Oct; 269(1-2):34-41. PubMed ID: 20674733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cortical neural activity underlying speech perception in postlingual adult cochlear implant recipients.
    Henkin Y; Tetin-Schneider S; Hildesheimer M; Kishon-Rabin L
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14(1):39-53. PubMed ID: 18781063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.