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 *

477 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24152309)

  • 1. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
    Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users.
    Bhargava P; Gaudrain E; Başkent D
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():113-23. PubMed ID: 24368138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant.
    Lenarz T; James C; Cuda D; Fitzgerald O'Connor A; Frachet B; Frijns JH; Klenzner T; Laszig R; Manrique M; Marx M; Merkus P; Mylanus EA; Offeciers E; Pesch J; Ramos-Macias A; Robier A; Sterkers O; Uziel A
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Dec; 52(12):838-48. PubMed ID: 23992489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Electric and acoustic harmonic integration predicts speech-in-noise performance in hybrid cochlear implant users.
    Bonnard D; Schwalje A; Gantz B; Choi I
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():223-230. PubMed ID: 29980380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of companding on speech recognition in quiet and noise for listeners with ANSD.
    Narne VK; Barman A; Deepthi M
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Feb; 53(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 24237041
    [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. Characteristics and international comparability of the Finnish matrix sentence test in cochlear implant recipients.
    Dietz A; Buschermöhle M; Sivonen V; Willberg T; Aarnisalo AA; Lenarz T; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():80-7. PubMed ID: 26364512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessment of speech recognition abilities in quiet and in noise: a comparison between self-administered home testing and testing in the clinic for adult cochlear implant users.
    de Graaff F; Huysmans E; Merkus P; Theo Goverts S; Smits C
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):872-880. PubMed ID: 30261772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Validation of list equivalency for Mandarin speech materials to use with cochlear implant listeners.
    Li Y; Wang S; Su Q; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S31-S40. PubMed ID: 27414242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
    Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.
    Goldsworthy RL; Delhorne LA; Braida LD; Reed CM
    Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):27-44. PubMed ID: 23429419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A Danish open-set speech corpus for competing-speech studies.
    Nielsen JB; Dau T; Neher T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):407-20. PubMed ID: 24437781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners.
    Hazrati O; Loizou PC
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 51(6):437-43. PubMed ID: 22356300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing.
    Oxenham AJ; Kreft HA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
    Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
    Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. An algorithm that administers adaptive speech-in-noise testing to a specified reliability at selectable points on the psychometric function.
    Keidser G; Dillon H; Mejia J; Nguyen CV
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Nov; 52(11):795-800. PubMed ID: 23957444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.