391 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19219690)
1. Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acoustic-electric stimulation.
Simpson A; McDermott HJ; Dowell RC; Sucher C; Briggs RJ
Int J Audiol; 2009 Feb; 48(2):63-73. PubMed ID: 19219690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Standard cochlear implantation of adults with residual low-frequency hearing: implications for combined electro-acoustic stimulation.
Novak MA; Black JM; Koch DB
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):609-14. PubMed ID: 17514064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The influence of different speech processor and hearing aid settings on speech perception outcomes in electric acoustic stimulation patients.
Vermeire K; Anderson I; Flynn M; Van de Heyning P
Ear Hear; 2008 Jan; 29(1):76-86. PubMed ID: 18091097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Investigations on the tonotopy for patients with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid.
Niewiarowicz M; Stieler O
Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord); 2005; 126(2):75-80. PubMed ID: 16180345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
Boyd PJ
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.
Plant K; Holden L; Skinner M; Arcaroli J; Whitford L; Law MA; Nel E
Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):381-93. PubMed ID: 17485987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids.
Davidson LS
Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):493-507. PubMed ID: 16957500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.
McDermott H; Sucher C; Simpson A
Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():2-7. PubMed ID: 19390169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover.
Lenarz T; Stöver T; Buechner A; Lesinski-Schiedat A; Patrick J; Pesch J
Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():22-31. PubMed ID: 19390172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.
Stohl JS; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cochlear implant patients' speech understanding in background noise: effect of mismatch between electrode assigned frequencies and perceived pitch.
Di Nardo W; Scorpecci A; Giannantonio S; Cianfrone F; Parrilla C; Paludetti G
J Laryngol Otol; 2010 Aug; 124(8):828-34. PubMed ID: 20202276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants.
Başkent D; Eiler CL; Edwards B
Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):370-80. PubMed ID: 17485986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Use of S-shaped input-output functions for noise suppression in cochlear implants.
Kasturi K; Loizou PC
Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):402-11. PubMed ID: 17485989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Speech perception in individuals with auditory neuropathy.
Zeng FG; Liu S
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):367-80. PubMed ID: 16671850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
