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 *

321 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19173112)

  • 21. Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences.
    Stickney GS; Assmann PF; Chang J; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1069-78. PubMed ID: 17672654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Training of cochlear implant users to improve pitch perception in the presence of competing place cues.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(2):e1-e13. PubMed ID: 25329372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Discrimination of intonation contours by adolescents with cochlear implants.
    Holt CM; McDermott HJ
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Dec; 52(12):808-15. PubMed ID: 24053225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Experiences of the use of FOX, an intelligent agent, for programming cochlear implant sound processors in new users.
    Vaerenberg B; Govaerts PJ; de Ceulaer G; Daemers K; Schauwers K
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):50-8. PubMed ID: 21091083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Improvement in speech-reading ability by auditory training: Evidence from gender differences in normally hearing, deaf and cochlear implanted subjects.
    Strelnikov K; Rouger J; Lagleyre S; Fraysse B; Deguine O; Barone P
    Neuropsychologia; 2009 Mar; 47(4):972-9. PubMed ID: 19022268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Acoustic and perceptual cues to contrastive stress in dysarthria.
    Patel R; Campellone P
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2009 Feb; 52(1):206-22. PubMed ID: 18695019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users.
    Looi V; McDermott H; McKay C; Hickson L
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):421-34. PubMed ID: 18344870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Gender and the integration of acoustic dimensions of prosody: implications for clinical studies.
    Fitzsimons M; Sheahan N; Staunton H
    Brain Lang; 2001 Jul; 78(1):94-108. PubMed ID: 11412018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Discrimination of Voice Pitch and Vocal-Tract Length in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Gaudrain E; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(2):226-237. PubMed ID: 28799983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Perception of clear fricatives by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners.
    Maniwa K; Jongman A; Wade T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1114-25. PubMed ID: 18247912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. New cochlear implant coding strategy for tonal language speakers.
    Wong LL; Vandali AE; Ciocca V; Luk B; Ip VW; Murray B; Yu HC; Chung I
    Int J Audiol; 2008 Jun; 47(6):337-47. PubMed ID: 18569106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Binaural pitch perception in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Santurette S; Dau T
    Hear Res; 2007 Jan; 223(1-2):29-47. PubMed ID: 17107767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older adults.
    Jenstad LM; Souza PE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Oct; 50(5):1123-38. PubMed ID: 17905900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition.
    Chatterjee M; Peng SC
    Hear Res; 2008 Jan; 235(1-2):143-56. PubMed ID: 18093766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The adaptive pattern of the late auditory evoked potential elicited by repeated stimuli in cochlear implant users.
    Zhang F; Anderson J; Samy R; Houston L
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Apr; 49(4):277-85. PubMed ID: 20151878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects.
    Cullington HE; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Jan; 123(1):450-61. PubMed ID: 18177173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effects of envelope shape on interaural envelope delay sensitivity in acoustic and electric hearing.
    Laback B; Zimmermann I; Majdak P; Baumgartner WD; Pok SM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1515-29. PubMed ID: 21895091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.