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 *

232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23063250)

  • 1. Analysis of electrical thresholds and maximum comfortable levels in cochlear implant patients.
    Vargas JL; Sainz M; Roldan C; Alvarez I; de la Torre A
    Auris Nasus Larynx; 2013 Jun; 40(3):260-5. PubMed ID: 23063250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
    Boyd PJ
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict C-levels in the Tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor.
    Alvarez I; de la Torre A; Sainz M; Roldán C; Schoesser H; Spitzer P
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):134-45. PubMed ID: 19838116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Auditory Performance and Electrical Stimulation Measures in Cochlear Implant Recipients With Auditory Neuropathy Compared With Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
    Attias J; Greenstein T; Peled M; Ulanovski D; Wohlgelernter J; Raveh E
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(2):184-193. PubMed ID: 28225734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Electrically evoked amplitude modulation following response in cochlear implant candidates: comparison with auditory nerve response telemetry, subjective electrical stimulation, and speech perception.
    Hirschfelder A; Gräbel S; Olze H
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Aug; 33(6):968-75. PubMed ID: 22772009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A longitudinal study of electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance in children using the Clarion cochlear implant.
    Henkin Y; Kaplan-Neeman R; Kronenberg J; Migirov L; Hildesheimer M; Muchnik C
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 126(6):581-6. PubMed ID: 16720441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The role of hearing preservation on electrical thresholds and speech performances in cochlear implantation.
    D'Elia A; Bartoli R; Giagnotti F; Quaranta N
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Apr; 33(3):343-7. PubMed ID: 22388729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Cochlear implantees: Analysis of behavioral and objective measures for a clinical population of various age groups.
    Greisiger R; Shallop JK; Hol PK; Elle OJ; Jablonski GE
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015; 16 Suppl 4():1-19. PubMed ID: 26642899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant.
    Skarzynski H; Lorens A; Matusiak M; Porowski M; Skarzynski PH; James CJ
    Audiol Neurootol; 2012; 17(2):82-91. PubMed ID: 21846981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Auditory cortical responses in patients with cochlear implants.
    Burdo S; Razza S; Di Berardino F; Tognola G
    Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital; 2006 Apr; 26(2):69-77. PubMed ID: 16886849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Cochlear implant in children: rational, indications and cost/efficacy].
    Martini A; Bovo R; Trevisi P; Forli F; Berrettini S
    Minerva Pediatr; 2013 Jun; 65(3):325-39. PubMed ID: 23685383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Complications and pitfalls of cochlear implantation in otosclerosis: a 6-year follow-up cohort study.
    Sainz M; Garcia-Valdecasas J; Ballesteros JM
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Dec; 30(8):1044-8. PubMed ID: 19395988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cochlear implantation at under 12 months: report on 10 patients.
    Colletti V; Carner M; Miorelli V; Guida M; Colletti L; Fiorino FG
    Laryngoscope; 2005 Mar; 115(3):445-9. PubMed ID: 15744155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Modiolar coiling, electrical thresholds, and speech perception after cochlear implantation using the nucleus contour advance electrode with the advance off stylet technique.
    Huang TC; Reitzen SD; Marrinan MS; Waltzman SB; Roland JT
    Otol Neurotol; 2006 Feb; 27(2):159-66. PubMed ID: 16436984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Otosclerosis: mid-term results of cochlear implantation.
    Sainz M; García-Valdecasas J; Garófano M; Ballesteros JM
    Audiol Neurootol; 2007; 12(6):401-6. PubMed ID: 17675831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
    Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The pattern of auditory brainstem response wave V maturation in cochlear-implanted children.
    Thai-Van H; Cozma S; Boutitie F; Disant F; Truy E; Collet L
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2007 Mar; 118(3):676-89. PubMed ID: 17223382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. From hearing screening to cochlear implantation: cochlear implants in children under 3 years of age.
    Profant M; Kabátová Z; Simková L
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2008 Apr; 128(4):369-72. PubMed ID: 18368567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech perception in nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds.
    Smoorenburg GF; Willeboer C; van Dijk JE
    Audiol Neurootol; 2002; 7(6):335-47. PubMed ID: 12401965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.