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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2141660)

  • 1. Speech perception with a single-channel cochlear implant: a comparison with a single-channel tactile device.
    Carney AE; Kienle M; Miyamoto RT
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Jun; 33(2):229-37. PubMed ID: 2141660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Vibrotactile perception of suprasegmental features of speech: a comparison of single-channel and multichannel instruments.
    Carney AE; Beachler CR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1986 Jan; 79(1):131-40. PubMed ID: 3944340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Tactile perception by the profoundly deaf. Speech and environmental sounds.
    Plant GL
    Br J Audiol; 1982 Nov; 16(4):233-44. PubMed ID: 6897619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Vibrotactile perception of segmental features of speech: a comparison of single-channel and multichannel instruments.
    Carney AE
    J Speech Hear Res; 1988 Sep; 31(3):438-48. PubMed ID: 3172761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Speech perception abilities of children with cochlear implants, tactile aids, or hearing aids.
    Osberger MJ; Robbins AM; Miyamoto RT; Berry SW; Myres WA; Kessler KS; Pope ML
    Am J Otol; 1991; 12 Suppl():105-15. PubMed ID: 2069171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Discrimination of synthetic vowels by using tactile vocoder and a comparison to that of an eight-channel cochlear implant.
    Ifukube T
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1989 Nov; 36(11):1085-91. PubMed ID: 2530151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of vowel production by children with multichannel cochlear implants or tactile aids: perceptual evidence.
    Ertmer DJ; Kirk KI; Sehgal ST; Riley AI; Osberger MJ
    Ear Hear; 1997 Aug; 18(4):307-15. PubMed ID: 9288476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Vibrotactile devices as sensory aids for the deaf.
    Miyamoto RT; Myres WA; Wagner M; Punch JL
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 1987 Jul; 97(1):57-63. PubMed ID: 2956557
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The recognition of vowels differing by a single formant by cochlear-implant subjects.
    Tyler RS; Tye-Murray N; Otto SR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Dec; 86(6):2107-12. PubMed ID: 2532227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of speech discrimination with cochlear implants and tactile aids.
    Carney AE; Osberger MJ; Carney E; Robbins AM; Renshaw J; Miyamoto RT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Oct; 94(4):2036-49. PubMed ID: 8227746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Single-channel vibrotactile supplements to visual perception of intonation and stress.
    Bernstein LE; Eberhardt SP; Demorest ME
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Jan; 85(1):397-405. PubMed ID: 2522107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Performance of deaf children with cochlear implants and vibrotactile aids.
    Osberger MJ; Miyamoto RT; Robbins AM; Renshaw JJ; Berry SW; Myres WA; Kessler K; Pope ML
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1990 Jan; 1(1):7-10. PubMed ID: 2132583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of two training strategies for speech recognition with an electrotactile speech processor.
    Alcantara JI; Cowan RS; Blamey PJ; Clark GM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Mar; 33(1):195-204. PubMed ID: 2138238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Visual and tactual perception of syllable number in sentence stimuli.
    Bourgeois MS; Goldstein H
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1983 Jan; 73(1):367-71. PubMed ID: 6219145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Patterns of phoneme perception errors by listeners with cochlear implants as a function of overall speech perception ability.
    Munson B; Donaldson GS; Allen SL; Collison EA; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Feb; 113(2):925-35. PubMed ID: 12597186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Auditory implants and tactile aids for the profoundly deaf.
    Pickett JM; McFarland W
    J Speech Hear Res; 1985 Mar; 28(1):134-50. PubMed ID: 3884896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech recognition with the MPEAK and SPEAK speech-coding strategies of the Nucleus Cochlear Implant.
    Holden LK; Skinner MW; Holden TA
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 1997 Feb; 116(2):163-7. PubMed ID: 9051058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Relative performance of single-channel and multichannel tactile aids for speech perception.
    Weisenberger JM; Broadstone SM; Kozma-Spytek L
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1991; 28(2):45-56. PubMed ID: 1829759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance of prelingually or postlingually deafened adults who were using a single or multichannel cochlear implant.
    Hinderink JB; Snik AF; Mens LH; Brokx JP; van den Broek P
    Ear Nose Throat J; 1994 Mar; 73(3):180-3. PubMed ID: 8205980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech intelligibility as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Beers M; Boermans PP; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):445-58. PubMed ID: 21258238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.