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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25234893)

  • 1. Overlapping frequency coverage and simulated spatial cue effects on bimodal (electrical and acoustical) sentence recognition in noise.
    Green T; Faulkner A; Rosen S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Feb; 135(2):851-61. PubMed ID: 25234893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Binaural advantages in users of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant devices.
    Kokkinakis K; Pak N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL47-53. PubMed ID: 24437856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients.
    Vroegop JL; Homans NC; Goedegebure A; van der Schroeff MP
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):858-863. PubMed ID: 30261771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Spectral contrast enhancement improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implants.
    Nogueira W; Rode T; Büchner A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):728-39. PubMed ID: 26936556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.
    Srinivasan AG; Padilla M; Shannon RV; Landsberger DM
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():29-36. PubMed ID: 23467170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Advantages from bilateral hearing in speech perception in noise with simulated cochlear implants and residual acoustic hearing.
    Schoof T; Green T; Faulkner A; Rosen S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Feb; 133(2):1017-30. PubMed ID: 23363118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.
    Dorman MF; Cook S; Spahr A; Zhang T; Loiselle L; Schramm D; Whittingham J; Gifford R
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():107-11. PubMed ID: 25285624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients.
    Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Pulse-spreading harmonic complex as an alternative carrier for vocoder simulations of cochlear implants.
    Mesnildrey Q; Hilkhuysen G; Macherey O
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):986-91. PubMed ID: 26936577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Rate and onset cues can improve cochlear implant synthetic vowel recognition in noise.
    Mc Laughlin M; Reilly RB; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1546-60. PubMed ID: 23464025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Relationship between multipulse integration and speech recognition with cochlear implants.
    Zhou N; Pfingst BE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1257. PubMed ID: 25190399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Voice gender differences and separation of simultaneous talkers in cochlear implant users with residual hearing.
    Visram AS; Kluk K; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):EL135-41. PubMed ID: 22894312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.