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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26775182)

  • 1. A neural-based vocoder implementation for evaluating cochlear implant coding strategies.
    El Boghdady N; Kegel A; Lai WK; Dillier N
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():136-149. PubMed ID: 26775182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Information theoretic evaluation of a noiseband-based cochlear implant simulator.
    Aguiar DE; Taylor NE; Li J; Gazanfari DK; Talavage TM; Laflen JB; Neuberger H; Svirsky MA
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():185-193. PubMed ID: 26409068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Predicting effects of hearing-instrument signal processing on consonant perception.
    Zaar J; Schmitt N; Derleth RP; DiNino M; Arenberg JG; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):3216. PubMed ID: 29195458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of envelope bandwidth on importance functions for cochlear implant simulations.
    Whitmal NA; DeMaio D; Lin R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):733-44. PubMed ID: 25698008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparing sound localization deficits in bilateral cochlear-implant users and vocoder simulations with normal-hearing listeners.
    Jones H; Kan A; Litovsky RY
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25385244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Speech perception with interaction-compensated simultaneous stimulation and long pulse durations in cochlear implant users.
    Schatzer R; Koroleva I; Griessner A; Levin S; Kusovkov V; Yanov Y; Zierhofer C
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():99-106. PubMed ID: 25457654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Adding simultaneous stimulating channels to reduce power consumption in cochlear implants.
    Langner F; Saoji AA; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 345():96-107. PubMed ID: 28104408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessment of responses to cochlear implant stimulation at different levels of the auditory pathway.
    Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():67-76. PubMed ID: 25445817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users.
    Nelson DA; Kreft HA; Anderson ES; Donaldson GS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3916-33. PubMed ID: 21682414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Loudness and pitch perception using Dynamically Compensated Virtual Channels.
    Nogueira W; Litvak LM; Landsberger DM; Büchner A
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():223-234. PubMed ID: 27939418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The MMN as a viable and objective marker of auditory development in CI users.
    Näätänen R; Petersen B; Torppa R; Lonka E; Vuust P
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():57-75. PubMed ID: 28800468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluating multipulse integration as a neural-health correlate in human cochlear-implant users: Relationship to forward-masking recovery.
    Zhou N; Pfingst BE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Mar; 139(3):EL70-5. PubMed ID: 27036290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: contributions of static and dynamic spectral cues.
    Donaldson GS; Rogers CL; Cardenas ES; Russell BA; Hanna NH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3021-8. PubMed ID: 24116437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Gradual adaptation to auditory frequency mismatch.
    Svirsky MA; Talavage TM; Sinha S; Neuburger H; Azadpour M
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():163-70. PubMed ID: 25445816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Development and evaluation of the Nurotron 26-electrode cochlear implant system.
    Zeng FG; Rebscher SJ; Fu QJ; Chen H; Sun X; Yin L; Ping L; Feng H; Yang S; Gong S; Yang B; Kang HY; Gao N; Chi F
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():188-99. PubMed ID: 25281795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.