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 *

296 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24116428)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Differences in the temporal course of interaural time difference sensitivity between acoustic and electric hearing in amplitude modulated stimuli.
    Hu H; Ewert SD; McAlpine D; Dietz M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1862. PubMed ID: 28372072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Internalized elevation perception of simple stimuli in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.
    Thakkar T; Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):841-52. PubMed ID: 25096117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The Effect of Simulated Interaural Frequency Mismatch on Speech Understanding and Spatial Release From Masking.
    Goupell MJ; Stoelb CA; Kan A; Litovsky RY
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(5):895-905. PubMed ID: 29337763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Sequential stream segregation with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Wijetillake AA; van Hoesel RJM; Cowan R
    Hear Res; 2019 Nov; 383():107812. PubMed ID: 31630083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Binaural sensitivity in children who use bilateral cochlear implants.
    Ehlers E; Goupell MJ; Zheng Y; Godar SP; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4264. PubMed ID: 28618809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Head shadow enhancement with low-frequency beamforming improves sound localization and speech perception for simulated bimodal listeners.
    Dieudonné B; Francart T
    Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():78-84. PubMed ID: 29555110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Comparison of Interaural Electrode Pairing Methods for Bilateral Cochlear Implants.
    Hu H; Dietz M
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26631108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Suitability of the Binaural Interaction Component for Interaural Electrode Pairing of Bilateral Cochlear Implants.
    Hu H; Kollmeier B; Dietz M
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2016; 894():57-64. PubMed ID: 27080646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: contributions of static and dynamic spectral cues.
    Donaldson GS; Rogers CL; Cardenas ES; Russell BA; Hanna NH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3021-8. PubMed ID: 24116437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.
    Rana B; Buchholz JM; Morgan C; Sharma M; Weller T; Konganda SA; Shirai K; Kawano A
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517722106. PubMed ID: 28752811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Binaural fusion and listening effort in children who use bilateral cochlear implants: a psychoacoustic and pupillometric study.
    Steel MM; Papsin BC; Gordon KA
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(2):e0117611. PubMed ID: 25668423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants.
    Kong YY; Carlyon RP
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 May; 127(5):3114-23. PubMed ID: 21117760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A cochlear implant user with exceptional musical hearing ability.
    Maarefvand M; Marozeau J; Blamey PJ
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 52(6):424-32. PubMed ID: 23509878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Spatial hearing in a child with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder and bilateral cochlear implants.
    Johnstone PM; Yeager KR; Noss E
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 52(6):400-8. PubMed ID: 23586418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effect of multi-electrode configuration on sensitivity to interaural timing differences in bilateral cochlear-implant users.
    Kan A; Jones HG; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):3826-33. PubMed ID: 26723337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The effect of different cochlear implant microphones on acoustic hearing individuals' binaural benefits for speech perception in noise.
    Aronoff JM; Freed DJ; Fisher LM; Pal I; Soli SD
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):468-84. PubMed ID: 21412155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.