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 *

241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19363720)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Optimizing the benefit of sound processors coupled to personal FM systems.
    Wolfe J; Schafer EC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008 Sep; 19(8):585-94. PubMed ID: 19323350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Perceptually optimized gain function for cochlear implant signal-to-noise ratio based noise reduction.
    Mauger SJ; Dawson PW; Hersbach AA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jan; 131(1):327-36. PubMed ID: 22280595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Initial clinical experience with a totally implantable cochlear implant research device.
    Briggs RJ; Eder HC; Seligman PM; Cowan RS; Plant KL; Dalton J; Money DK; Patrick JF
    Otol Neurotol; 2008 Feb; 29(2):114-9. PubMed ID: 17898671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Performance of older adult cochlear implant users in Hong Kong.
    Chan V; Tong M; Yue V; Wong T; Leung E; Yuen K; van Hasselt A
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):52S-55S. PubMed ID: 17496647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Which sensitivity setting should a child use?
    Müller-Deile J
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S101-3. PubMed ID: 9391618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Cruz RJ
    Audiol Neurootol; 2005; 10(3):169-84. PubMed ID: 15724088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Auditory cortical activation and speech perception in cochlear implant users: effects of implant experience and duration of deafness.
    Green KM; Julyan PJ; Hastings DL; Ramsden RT
    Hear Res; 2005 Jul; 205(1-2):184-92. PubMed ID: 15953527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effects of stimulation rate on modulation detection and speech recognition by cochlear implant users.
    Arora K; Vandali A; Dowell R; Dawson P
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Feb; 50(2):123-32. PubMed ID: 21070121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Sound-direction identification with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Neuman AC; Haravon A; Sislian N; Waltzman SB
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):73-82. PubMed ID: 17204900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Visual stimuli can impair auditory processing in cochlear implant users.
    Champoux F; Lepore F; Gagné JP; Théoret H
    Neuropsychologia; 2009 Jan; 47(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 18824184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience.
    Whitmal NA; Poissant SF; Freyman RL; Helfer KS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Oct; 122(4):2376-88. PubMed ID: 17902872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Recognition of simulated telephone speech by cochlear implant users.
    Fu QJ; Galvin JJ
    Am J Audiol; 2006 Dec; 15(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 17182877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Perception of speech in reverberant conditions using AM-FM cochlear implant simulation.
    Drgas S; Blaszak MA
    Hear Res; 2010 Oct; 269(1-2):162-8. PubMed ID: 20603206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.