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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25546030)

  • 1. Effect of input compression and input frequency response on music perception in cochlear implant users.
    Halliwell ER; Jones LL; Fraser M; Lockley M; Hill-Feltham P; McKay CM
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Jun; 54(6):401-7. PubMed ID: 25546030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Music mixing preferences of cochlear implant recipients: a pilot study.
    Buyens W; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2014 May; 53(5):294-301. PubMed ID: 24471410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of Compression on Musical Sound Quality in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Gilbert M; Jiradejvong P; Limb C
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(6):1368-1375. PubMed ID: 30946137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Use of the Phantom Electrode strategy to improve bass frequency perception for music listening in cochlear implant users.
    Munjal T; Roy AT; Carver C; Jiradejvong P; Limb CJ
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 3():S121-8. PubMed ID: 26561883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessment of sound quality perception in cochlear implant users during music listening.
    Roy AT; Jiradejvong P; Carver C; Limb CJ
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Apr; 33(3):319-27. PubMed ID: 22314920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Recognition of "real-world" musical excerpts by cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults.
    Gfeller K; Olszewski C; Rychener M; Sena K; Knutson JF; Witt S; Macpherson B
    Ear Hear; 2005 Jun; 26(3):237-50. PubMed ID: 15937406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. From fragments to the whole: a comparison between cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners in music perception and enjoyment.
    Alexander AJ; Bartel L; Friesen L; Shipp D; Chen J
    J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2011 Feb; 40(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 21303594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users.
    Looi V; McDermott H; McKay C; Hickson L
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):421-34. PubMed ID: 18344870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Perception of the pitch and naturalness of popular music by cochlear implant users.
    Grasmeder ML; Verschuur CA
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 3():S79-90. PubMed ID: 26561891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Music recognition, music listening, and word recognition by deaf children with cochlear implants.
    Mitani C; Nakata T; Trehub SE; Kanda Y; Kumagami H; Takasaki K; Miyamoto I; Takahashi H
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):29S-33S. PubMed ID: 17496641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Intra-individual assessment of speech and music perception in cochlear implant users with contralateral Cochlear™ and MED-EL™ systems.
    Harris RL; Gibson WP; Johnson M; Brew J; Bray M; Psarros C
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2011 Dec; 131(12):1270-8. PubMed ID: 22074105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with cochlear implants.
    Fitzpatrick EM; Séguin C; Schramm DR; Armstrong S; Chénier J
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):590-9. PubMed ID: 19561509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    Başkent D; Eiler CL; Edwards B
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):370-80. PubMed ID: 17485986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of a Stereo Music Preprocessing Scheme for Cochlear Implant Users.
    Buyens W; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Jan; 29(1):35-43. PubMed ID: 29309022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Multicentre evaluation of music perception in adult users of Advanced Bionics cochlear implants.
    Adams D; Ajimsha KM; Barberá MT; Gazibegovic D; Gisbert J; Gómez J; Raveh E; Rocca C; Romanet P; Seebens Y; Zarowski A
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 Jan; 15(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 24074504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A Stereo Music Preprocessing Scheme for Cochlear Implant Users.
    Buyens W; van Dijk B; Wouters J; Moonen M
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2015 Oct; 62(10):2434-42. PubMed ID: 25966469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Tone discrimination and speech perception benefit in Mandarin-speaking children fit with HiRes fidelity 120 sound processing.
    Chang YT; Yang HM; Lin YH; Liu SH; Wu JL
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Sep; 30(6):750-7. PubMed ID: 19704359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cochlear Implant Compression Optimization for Musical Sound Quality in MED-EL Users.
    Gilbert ML; Deroche MLD; Jiradejvong P; Chan Barrett K; Limb CJ
    Ear Hear; 2022; 43(3):862-873. PubMed ID: 34812791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of music perception in bilateral and unilateral cochlear implant users and normal-hearing subjects.
    Veekmans K; Ressel L; Mueller J; Vischer M; Brockmeier SJ
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14(5):315-26. PubMed ID: 19372650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.