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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25190394)

  • 1. Factors influencing electrical place pitch perception in bimodal listeners.
    Plant KL; McDermott HJ; van Hoesel RJ; Dawson PW; Cowan RS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1199. PubMed ID: 25190394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Binaural pitch fusion: Comparison of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Reiss LA; Shayman CS; Walker EP; Bennett KO; Fowler JR; Hartling CL; Glickman B; Lasarev MR; Oh Y
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1909. PubMed ID: 28372056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Binaural pitch fusion: Pitch averaging and dominance in hearing-impaired listeners with broad fusion.
    Oh Y; Reiss LAJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Aug; 142(2):780. PubMed ID: 28863555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Investigating interaural frequency-place mismatches via bimodal vowel integration.
    Guérit F; Santurette S; Chalupper J; Dau T
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.
    McDermott H; Sucher C; Simpson A
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():2-7. PubMed ID: 19390169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Tone perception in Mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants.
    Li G; Soli SD; Zheng Y
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S49-S59. PubMed ID: 28532185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Perceptual changes in place of stimulation with long cochlear implant electrode arrays.
    Landsberger DM; Mertens G; Punte AK; Van De Heyning P
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Feb; 135(2):EL75-81. PubMed ID: 25234918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Prediction of cochlear implant performance by genetic mutation: the spiral ganglion hypothesis.
    Eppsteiner RW; Shearer AE; Hildebrand MS; Deluca AP; Ji H; Dunn CC; Black-Ziegelbein EA; Casavant TL; Braun TA; Scheetz TE; Scherer SE; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Smith RJ
    Hear Res; 2012 Oct; 292(1-2):51-8. PubMed ID: 22975204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Abnormal pitch perception produced by cochlear implant stimulation.
    Zeng FG; Tang Q; Lu T
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(2):e88662. PubMed ID: 24551131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.