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 *

235 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23172009)

  • 21. Musical background not associated with self-perceived hearing performance or speech perception in postlingual cochlear-implant users.
    Fuller C; Free R; Maat B; Başkent D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):1009-16. PubMed ID: 22894221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users.
    Jones GL; Won JH; Drennan WR; Rubinstein JT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jan; 133(1):425-33. PubMed ID: 23297914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Characterizing the relationship between modulation sensitivity and pitch resolution in cochlear implant users.
    Camarena A; Goldsworthy RL
    Hear Res; 2024 Jul; 448():109026. PubMed ID: 38776706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Contour identification with pitch and loudness cues using cochlear implants.
    Luo X; Masterson ME; Wu CC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL8-14. PubMed ID: 24437857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Cochlear implant users move in time to the beat of drum music.
    Phillips-Silver J; Toiviainen P; Gosselin N; Turgeon C; Lepore F; Peretz I
    Hear Res; 2015 Mar; 321():25-34. PubMed ID: 25575604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Perception of stochastic envelopes by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Gomersall PA; Turner RE; Baguley DM; Deeks JM; Gockel HE; Carlyon RP
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():8-24. PubMed ID: 26706708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Consonant recognition as a function of the number of stimulation channels in the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.
    Reiss LA; Turner CW; Karsten SA; Erenberg SR; Taylor J; Gantz BJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3406-17. PubMed ID: 23145621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Acoustic cue integration in speech intonation recognition with cochlear implants.
    Peng SC; Chatterjee M; Lu N
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Jun; 16(2):67-82. PubMed ID: 22790392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Dichotic Listening Can Improve Perceived Clarity of Music in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Vannson N; Innes-Brown H; Marozeau J
    Trends Hear; 2015 Aug; 19():. PubMed ID: 26316123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Interaural envelope correlation change discrimination in bilateral cochlear implantees: effects of mismatch, centering, and onset of deafness.
    Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1282-97. PubMed ID: 25786942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Perceptual changes with monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation.
    Klawitter S; Landsberger DM; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2018 Mar; 359():64-75. PubMed ID: 29325874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evidence of across-channel processing for spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant listeners.
    Won JH; Jones GL; Drennan WR; Jameyson EM; Rubinstein JT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2088-97. PubMed ID: 21973363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Nonlinear frequency compression: effects on sound quality ratings of speech and music.
    Parsa V; Scollie S; Glista D; Seelisch A
    Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):54-68. PubMed ID: 23539261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Formant frequency discrimination with a fine structure sound coding strategy for cochlear implants.
    Liepins R; Kaider A; Honeder C; Auinger AB; Dahm V; Riss D; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2020 Jul; 392():107970. PubMed ID: 32339775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Utility of bilateral acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant.
    Plant K; Babic L
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S31-8. PubMed ID: 26987051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The ability of cochlear implant users to use temporal envelope cues recovered from speech frequency modulation.
    Won JH; Lorenzi C; Nie K; Li X; Jameyson EM; Drennan WR; Rubinstein JT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):1113-9. PubMed ID: 22894230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users.
    Nelson DA; Kreft HA; Anderson ES; Donaldson GS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3916-33. PubMed ID: 21682414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.
    Carroll J; Tiaden S; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2054-62. PubMed ID: 21973360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation.
    Zhu Z; Tang Q; Zeng FG; Guan T; Ye D
    Hear Res; 2012 Jan; 283(1-2):45-58. PubMed ID: 22138630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users.
    Anderson ES; Oxenham AJ; Nelson PB; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Dec; 132(6):3925-34. PubMed ID: 23231122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.