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 *

469 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21869623)

  • 1. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
    Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function.
    Baumann U; Nobbe A
    Hear Res; 2006 Mar; 213(1-2):34-42. PubMed ID: 16442249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch.
    Schatzer R; Vermeire K; Visser D; Krenmayr A; Kals M; Voormolen M; Van de Heyning P; Zierhofer C
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():26-35. PubMed ID: 24252455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.
    McDermott H; Sucher C; Simpson A
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():2-7. PubMed ID: 19390169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing.
    Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():185-196. PubMed ID: 28688755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Results of partial deafness cochlear implantation using various electrode designs.
    Skarzyński H; Lorens A; Piotrowska A; Podskarbi-Fayette R
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():39-45. PubMed ID: 19390174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.
    Busby PA; Battmer RD; Pesch J
    Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):853-64. PubMed ID: 18633324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acoustic-electric stimulation.
    Simpson A; McDermott HJ; Dowell RC; Sucher C; Briggs RJ
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Feb; 48(2):63-73. PubMed ID: 19219690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Differences between electrode-assigned frequencies and cochlear implant recipient pitch perception.
    Nardo WD; Cantore I; Cianfrone F; Melillo P; Fetoni AR; Paludetti G
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2007 Apr; 127(4):370-7. PubMed ID: 17453456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. New parallel stimulation strategies revisited: effect of synchronous multi electrode stimulation on rate discrimination in cochlear implant users.
    Bahmer A; Baumann U
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2013 Jun; 14(3):142-9. PubMed ID: 22733121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.
    Boëx C; Baud L; Cosendai G; Sigrist A; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 7(2):110-24. PubMed ID: 16450213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Potential benefits from deeply inserted cochlear implant electrodes.
    Boyd PJ
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):411-27. PubMed ID: 21248642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration.
    Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 202(1-2):55-62. PubMed ID: 15811699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Spread of excitation and channel interaction in single- and dual-electrode cochlear implant stimulation.
    Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; Vanpoucke FJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):367-76. PubMed ID: 22048258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man.
    Eddington DK; Dobelle WH; Brackmann DE; Mladejovsky MG; Parkin JL
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 1978; 87(6 Pt 2):1-39. PubMed ID: 736424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.