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.
6. Speech masking release in Hybrid cochlear implant users: Roles of spectral and temporal cues in electric-acoustic hearing. Tejani VD; Brown CJ J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 May; 147(5):3667. PubMed ID: 32486815 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. The role of electroneural versus electrophonic stimulation on psychoacoustic electric-acoustic masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing. Kipping D; Krüger B; Nogueira W Hear Res; 2020 Sep; 395():108036. PubMed ID: 32736202 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing. Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Psychophysical properties of low-frequency hearing: implications for perceiving speech and music via electric and acoustic stimulation. Gifford RH; Dorman MF; Brown CA Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 2010; 67():51-60. PubMed ID: 19955721 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty. Gifford RH; Davis TJ; Sunderhaus LW; Menapace C; Buck B; Crosson J; O'Neill L; Beiter A; Segel P Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):539-553. PubMed ID: 28301392 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Electric-Acoustic Stimulation After Reimplantation: Hearing Preservation and Speech Perception. Thompson NJ; Dillon MT; Bucker AL; King ER; Pillsbury HC; Brown KD Otol Neurotol; 2019 Feb; 40(2):e94-e98. PubMed ID: 30624400 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears. Fu QJ; Galvin JJ; Wang X Sci Rep; 2017 Oct; 7(1):12500. PubMed ID: 28970567 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. HEARING, PSYCHOPHYSICS, AND COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION: EXPERIENCES OF OLDER INDIVIDUALS WITH MILD SLOPING TO PROFOUND SENSORY HEARING LOSS. Gifford RH; Dorman MF; Brown C; Spahr AJ J Hear Sci; 2012 Dec; 2(4):9-17. PubMed ID: 24319590 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation. Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Speech perception with electric-acoustic stimulation : Comparison with bilateral cochlear implant users in different noise conditions]. Rader T HNO; 2015 Feb; 63(2):85-93. PubMed ID: 25515123 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Impact of Electric Stimulation on Residual Hearing. Dillon MT; Bucker AL; Adunka MC; King ER; Adunka OF; Buchman CA; Pillsbury HC J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Sep; 26(8):732-740. PubMed ID: 26333881 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Interaction Between Electric and Acoustic Stimulation Influences Speech Perception in Ipsilateral EAS Users. Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W Ear Hear; 2020; 41(4):868-882. PubMed ID: 31592902 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]