145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21997337)
21. Hearing preservation and speech perception outcomes with electric-acoustic stimulation after 12 months of listening experience.
Adunka OF; Dillon MT; Adunka MC; King ER; Pillsbury HC; Buchman CA
Laryngoscope; 2013 Oct; 123(10):2509-15. PubMed ID: 23918623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Improved speech reception and sound quality with the DUET2 audio processor for electric acoustic stimulation.
Kleine Punte A; Mertens G; Cochet E; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
Acta Otolaryngol; 2015; 135(10):1022-9. PubMed ID: 26073650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Electric-Acoustic Stimulation After Reimplantation: Hearing Preservation and Speech Perception.
Thompson NJ; Dillon MT; Bucker AL; King ER; Pillsbury HC; Brown KD
Otol Neurotol; 2019 Feb; 40(2):e94-e98. PubMed ID: 30624400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms.
Johnson JA; Cox RM; Alexander GC
Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):47-55. PubMed ID: 19692903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Electric stimulation complements functional residual hearing in partial deafness.
Podskarbi-Fayette R; Pilka A; Skarzynski H
Acta Otolaryngol; 2010 Aug; 130(8):888-96. PubMed ID: 20105110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Relative importance of monaural sound deprivation and bilateral significant hearing loss in predicting cochlear implantation outcomes.
Boisvert I; McMahon CM; Tremblay G; Lyxell B
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(6):758-66. PubMed ID: 21750463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Acceptance and Benefits of Electro-Acoustic Stimulation for Conventional-Length Electrode Arrays.
Spitzer ER; Waltzman SB; Landsberger DM; Friedmann DR
Audiol Neurootol; 2021; 26(1):17-26. PubMed ID: 32721977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Combined electric and acoustic hearing performance with Zebra® speech processor: speech reception, place, and temporal coding evaluation.
Vaerenberg B; Péan V; Lesbros G; De Ceulaer G; Schauwers K; Daemers K; Gnansia D; Govaerts PJ
Cochlear Implants Int; 2013 Jun; 14(3):150-7. PubMed ID: 23321588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover.
Lenarz T; Stöver T; Buechner A; Lesinski-Schiedat A; Patrick J; Pesch J
Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():22-31. PubMed ID: 19390172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Outcomes in Children.
Park LR; Teagle HFB; Gagnon E; Woodard J; Brown KD
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(4):849-857. PubMed ID: 30252685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Electric-acoustic stimulation: for whom, in which ear, and how.
Ching TY; Incerti P; Plant K
Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Jan; 16 Suppl 1():S12-5. PubMed ID: 25614258
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparisons of sound processors based on osseointegrated implants in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss.
Pfiffner F; Caversaccio MD; Kompis M
Otol Neurotol; 2011 Jul; 32(5):728-35. PubMed ID: 21646934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. The advantages of sound localization and speech perception of bilateral electric acoustic stimulation.
Moteki H; Kitoh R; Tsukada K; Iwasaki S; Nishio SY; Usami S
Acta Otolaryngol; 2015 Feb; 135(2):147-53. PubMed ID: 25423260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The acceptance of background noise in adult cochlear implant users.
Plyler PN; Bahng J; von Hapsburg D
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Apr; 51(2):502-15. PubMed ID: 18367692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
