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 *

275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21696330)

  • 81. A cochlear implant user with exceptional musical hearing ability.
    Maarefvand M; Marozeau J; Blamey PJ
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 52(6):424-32. PubMed ID: 23509878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 82. The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users.
    Fu QJ; Chinchilla S; Galvin JJ
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Sep; 5(3):253-60. PubMed ID: 15492884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 83. Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners.
    Won JH; Drennan WR; Nie K; Jameyson EM; Rubinstein JT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):376-88. PubMed ID: 21786906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 84. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant listeners via single electrode stimulation in relation to speech perception.
    Liebscher T; Alberter K; Hoppe U
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Dec; 57(12):933-940. PubMed ID: 30295156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 85. Investigating interaural frequency-place mismatches via bimodal vowel integration.
    Guérit F; Santurette S; Chalupper J; Dau T
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 86. Musical sound quality impairments in cochlear implant (CI) users as a function of limited high-frequency perception.
    Roy AT; Jiradejvong P; Carver C; Limb CJ
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Dec; 16(4):191-200. PubMed ID: 23172009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 87. Factors influencing speech perception in noise for 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants.
    Ching TY; Zhang VW; Flynn C; Burns L; Button L; Hou S; McGhie K; Van Buynder P
    Int J Audiol; 2018 May; 57(sup2):S70-S80. PubMed ID: 28687057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 88. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.
    Debruyne JA; Francart T; Janssen AM; Douma K; Brokx JP
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):174-185. PubMed ID: 27758152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 89. Maximizing the spectral and temporal benefits of two clinically used sound processing strategies for cochlear implants.
    Won JH; Nie K; Drennan WR; Rubinstein JT
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Dec; 16(4):201-10. PubMed ID: 23264570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 90. The perception of prosody and associated auditory cues in early-implanted children: the role of auditory working memory and musical activities.
    Torppa R; Faulkner A; Huotilainen M; Järvikivi J; Lipsanen J; Laasonen M; Vainio M
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Mar; 53(3):182-91. PubMed ID: 24460045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 91. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.
    Rana B; Buchholz JM; Morgan C; Sharma M; Weller T; Konganda SA; Shirai K; Kawano A
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517722106. PubMed ID: 28752811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 92. Precedence based speech segregation in bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Hossain S; Montazeri V; Assmann PF; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):EL545-50. PubMed ID: 26723365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 93. Predicting the speech reception threshold of cochlear implant listeners using an envelope-correlation based measure.
    Yousefian N; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3399-405. PubMed ID: 23145620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 94. Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants.
    Ali H; Hazrati O; Tobey EA; Hansen JH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):EL242. PubMed ID: 25190428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 95. The relative importance of consonant and vowel segments to the recognition of words and sentences: effects of age and hearing loss.
    Fogerty D; Kewley-Port D; Humes LE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1667-78. PubMed ID: 22978895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 96. Pupillometry Reveals That Context Benefit in Speech Perception Can Be Disrupted by Later-Occurring Sounds, Especially in Listeners With Cochlear Implants.
    Winn MB; Moore AN
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518808962. PubMed ID: 30375282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 97. Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
    Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1246. PubMed ID: 25190398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 98. The role of speech rate for Italian-speaking cochlear implant users: insights for everyday speech perception.
    Dincer D'Alessandro H; Boyle PJ; Ballantyne D; De Vincentiis M; Mancini P
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):851-857. PubMed ID: 30178699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 99. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 100. Effect of bandpass filtering on melodic contour identification by cochlear implant users.
    Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Feb; 129(2):EL39-44. PubMed ID: 21361410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.