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 *

241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23539259)

  • 1. A systematic review of electric-acoustic stimulation: device fitting ranges, outcomes, and clinical fitting practices.
    Incerti PV; Ching TY; Cowan R
    Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):3-26. PubMed ID: 23539259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Electroacoustic Stimulation.
    Li C; Kuhlmey M; Kim AH
    Otolaryngol Clin North Am; 2019 Apr; 52(2):311-322. PubMed ID: 30617011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Is there evidence for the added value and correct use of manual and automatically switching multimemory hearing devices? A scoping review.
    de Graaff F; Huysmans E; Ket JCF; Merkus P; Goverts ST; Leemans CR; Smits C
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):176-183. PubMed ID: 29017358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.
    Scheperle RA; Tejani VD; Omtvedt JK; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Oleson JJ; Ozanne MV
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():45-57. PubMed ID: 28432874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Development and validation of a method to record electrophysiological responses in direct acoustic cochlear implant subjects.
    Deprez H; Gransier R; Hofmann M; Wouters J; Verhaert N
    Hear Res; 2018 Dec; 370():217-231. PubMed ID: 30213516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Bimodal benefits in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users with contralateral residual acoustic hearing.
    Yang HI; Zeng FG
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S17-S22. PubMed ID: 28485635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Ipsilateral masking between acoustic and electric stimulations.
    Lin P; Turner CW; Gantz BJ; Djalilian HR; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Aug; 130(2):858-65. PubMed ID: 21877801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
    Gifford RH; Stecker GC
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users.
    Zhou N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):EL243. PubMed ID: 28372106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Simulating the effect of interaural mismatch in the insertion depth of bilateral cochlear implants on speech perception.
    van Besouw RM; Forrester L; Crowe ND; Rowan D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Aug; 134(2):1348-57. PubMed ID: 23927131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Fitting recommendations and clinical benefit associated with use of the NAL-NL2 hearing-aid prescription in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients.
    English R; Plant K; Maciejczyk M; Cowan R
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S45-50. PubMed ID: 26853233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of electrode impedance measures between a dexamethasone-eluting and standard Cochlear™ Contour Advance® electrode in adult cochlear implant recipients.
    Briggs R; O 'Leary S; Birman C; Plant K; English R; Dawson P; Risi F; Gavrilis J; Needham K; Cowan R
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107924. PubMed ID: 32143111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The next generation of Nucleus(®) fitting: a multiplatform approach towards universal cochlear implant management.
    Botros A; Banna R; Maruthurkkara S
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jul; 52(7):485-94. PubMed ID: 23617610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. ACEMg-mediated hearing preservation in cochlear implant patients receiving different electrode lengths (PROHEARING): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
    Scheper V; Leifholz M; von der Leyen H; Keller M; Denkena U; Koch A; Karch A; Miller J; Lenarz T
    Trials; 2016 Aug; 17():394. PubMed ID: 27502589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cochlear implant simulator with independent representation of the full spiral ganglion.
    Grange JA; Culling JF; Harris NSL; Bergfeld S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):EL484. PubMed ID: 29195445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.