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 *

71 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21756597)

  • 1. Simulation of an EAS implant with a hybrid vocoder.
    Seldran F; Thai-Van H; Truy E; Berger-Vachon C; Collet L; Gallego S; Seldran F; Beliaeff M
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2010 Jun; 11 Suppl 1():125-9. PubMed ID: 21756597
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A filtered speech test to better evaluate electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) candidacy.
    Seldran F; Thai-Van H; Truy E; Berger-Vachon C; Collet L; Gallego S; Seldran F; Beliaeff M
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2010 Jun; 11 Suppl 1():130-3. PubMed ID: 21756598
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Combined electric acoustic stimulation with the PULSARCI(100) implant system using the FLEX(EAS) electrode array.
    Helbig S; Van de Heyning P; Kiefer J; Baumann U; Kleine-Punte A; Brockmeier H; Anderson I; Gstoettner W
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2011 Jun; 131(6):585-95. PubMed ID: 21281057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Is electric acoustic stimulation better than conventional cochlear implantation for speech perception in quiet?
    Adunka OF; Pillsbury HC; Adunka MC; Buchman CA
    Otol Neurotol; 2010 Sep; 31(7):1049-54. PubMed ID: 20351607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessment of the subjective benefit of electric acoustic stimulation with the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit.
    Gstoettner WK; Van de Heyning P; O'Connor AF; Kiefer J; Morera C; Sainz M; Vermeire K; McDonald S; Cavallé L; Valdecasas JG; Adunka OF; Baumann U; Kleine-Punte A; Brockmeier H; Anderson I; Helbig S
    ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2011; 73(6):321-9. PubMed ID: 21997337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: experience and results of ten patients using MED-EL's M and FlexEAS electrodes.
    Lee A; Jiang D; McLaren S; Nunn T; Demler JM; Tysome JR; Connor S; Fitzgerald O'Connor A
    Clin Otolaryngol; 2010 Jun; 35(3):190-7. PubMed ID: 20636737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Integration of acoustic and electrical hearing.
    Turner C; Gantz BJ; Reiss L
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2008; 45(5):769-78. PubMed ID: 18816425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study.
    Kiefer J; Pok M; Adunka O; Stürzebecher E; Baumgartner W; Schmidt M; Tillein J; Ye Q; Gstoettner W
    Audiol Neurootol; 2005; 10(3):134-44. PubMed ID: 15724084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Speech understanding in noise with an eyeglass hearing aid: asymmetric fitting and the head shadow benefit of anterior microphones.
    Mens LH
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 21047292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Long-term follow-up of hearing preservation in electric-acoustic stimulation patients.
    Mertens G; Punte AK; Cochet E; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
    Otol Neurotol; 2014 Dec; 35(10):1765-72. PubMed ID: 25133472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Multichannel compression hearing aids: effect of channel bandwidth on consonant and vowel identification by hearing-impaired listeners.
    Strelcyk O; Li N; Rodriguez J; Kalluri S; Edwards B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1598-606. PubMed ID: 23464029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Measuring the effects of reverberation and noise on sentence intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners.
    George EL; Goverts ST; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2010 Dec; 53(6):1429-39. PubMed ID: 20689027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Speech perception in individuals with auditory dys-synchrony.
    Kumar UA; Jayaram M
    J Laryngol Otol; 2011 Mar; 125(3):236-45. PubMed ID: 20883593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. On a reference-free speech quality estimator for hearing aids.
    Suelzle D; Parsa V; Falk TH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):EL412-8. PubMed ID: 23656102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS).
    Wilson BS
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2010 Jun; 11 Suppl 1():56-66. PubMed ID: 21756584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Advantage of bimodal fitting in prosody perception for children using a cochlear implant and a hearing aid.
    Straatman LV; Rietveld AC; Beijen J; Mylanus EA; Mens LH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Oct; 128(4):1884-95. PubMed ID: 20968360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.