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 *

243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19363720)

  • 1. Effects of FM-receiver gain on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants.
    Schafer EC; Wolfe J; Lawless T; Stout B
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Apr; 48(4):196-203. PubMed ID: 19363720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of speech perception performance between Sprint/Esprit 3G and Freedom processors in children implanted with nucleus cochlear implants.
    Santarelli R; Magnavita V; De Filippi R; Ventura L; Genovese E; Arslan E
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):304-12. PubMed ID: 19225440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Electromagnetic versus electrical coupling of personal frequency modulation (FM) receivers to cochlear implant sound processors.
    Schafer EC; Romine D; Musgrave E; Momin S; Huynh C
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(10):927-40. PubMed ID: 24384079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners.
    Donaldson GS; Allen SL
    Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):392-405. PubMed ID: 14534410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices.
    Spahr AJ; Dorman MF
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):624-8. PubMed ID: 15148187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
    Galvin KL; Mok M; Dowell RC
    Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):470-82. PubMed ID: 17609610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.
    Donaldson GS; Kreft HA
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):658-77. PubMed ID: 17086077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech Recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements.
    Schafer EC; Thibodeau LM
    Am J Audiol; 2006 Dec; 15(2):114-26. PubMed ID: 17182876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of input processing and type of personal frequency modulation system on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants.
    Wolfe J; Schafer E; Parkinson A; John A; Hudson M; Wheeler J; Mucci A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):52-62. PubMed ID: 22941405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM.
    Wolfe J; Schafer EC; Heldner B; Mülder H; Ward E; Vincent B
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2009; 20(7):409-21. PubMed ID: 19928395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients using a personal digital adaptive radio frequency system.
    Wolfe J; Morais M; Schafer E; Mills E; Mülder HE; Goldbeck F; Marquis F; John A; Hudson M; Peters BR; Lianos L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Sep; 24(8):714-24. PubMed ID: 24131607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Influence of mixing ratios of a FM-system on speech understanding of CI-users].
    Hey M; Anft D; Hocke T; Scholz G; Hessel H; Begall K
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2009 May; 88(5):315-21. PubMed ID: 19105120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Speech recognition for unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant modes in the presence of uncorrelated noise sources.
    Ricketts TA; Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Haynes DS; Labadie RF
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):763-73. PubMed ID: 17086085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
    Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Comparison of two cochlear implant speech processors in better versus poorer performers.
    Cafarelli Dees D; George C; Stevenson F; Sheridan C; Haacke NP
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():258-60. PubMed ID: 7668660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. [Noise signal reduction in cochlear implant speech processors].
    Müller-Deile J
    HNO; 1995 Sep; 43(9):545-51. PubMed ID: 7591867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Audiologic results with the MSP/MPEAK and WSP/F0F1F2 processors and coding strategies for the nucleus cochlear implant.
    Pijl S
    J Otolaryngol; 1994 Aug; 23(4):286-91. PubMed ID: 7996630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.