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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27093027)

  • 41. Masking release and modulation interference in cochlear implant and simulation listeners.
    Jin SH; Nie Y; Nelson P
    Am J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 22(1):135-46. PubMed ID: 23800809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Ideal time-frequency masking algorithms lead to different speech intelligibility and quality in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners.
    Koning R; Madhu N; Wouters J
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2015 Jan; 62(1):331-41. PubMed ID: 25167542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Dichotic Listening Can Improve Perceived Clarity of Music in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Vannson N; Innes-Brown H; Marozeau J
    Trends Hear; 2015 Aug; 19():. PubMed ID: 26316123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. What Does Music Sound Like for a Cochlear Implant User?
    Jiam NT; Caldwell MT; Limb CJ
    Otol Neurotol; 2017 Sep; 38(8):e240-e247. PubMed ID: 28806333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Song recognition by children and adolescents with cochlear implants.
    Vongpaisal T; Trehub SE; Schellenberg EG
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Oct; 49(5):1091-103. PubMed ID: 17077217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Pre- and Postoperative Binaural Unmasking for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):554-567. PubMed ID: 28301390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Contribution of hearing aids to music perception by cochlear implant users.
    Peterson N; Bergeson TR
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 3():S71-8. PubMed ID: 26561890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Melodic Contour Training and Its Effect on Speech in Noise, Consonant Discrimination, and Prosody Perception for Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Lo CY; McMahon CM; Looi V; Thompson WF
    Behav Neurol; 2015; 2015():352869. PubMed ID: 26494944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Clinical assessment of music perception in Korean cochlear implant listeners.
    Jung KH; Cho YS; Cho JK; Park GY; Kim EY; Hong SH; Chung WH; Won JH; Rubinstein JT
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2010 Jun; 130(6):716-23. PubMed ID: 19958251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Older and younger adult cochlear implant users: speech recognition in quiet and noise, quality of life, and music perception.
    Sladen DP; Zappler A
    Am J Audiol; 2015 Mar; 24(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 25239296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Völker C; Warzybok A; Ernst SM
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Can Haptic Stimulation Enhance Music Perception in Hearing-Impaired Listeners?
    Fletcher MD
    Front Neurosci; 2021; 15():723877. PubMed ID: 34531717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Neural Processing of Musical and Vocal Emotions Through Cochlear Implants Simulation.
    Ahmed DG; Paquette S; Zeitouni A; Lehmann A
    Clin EEG Neurosci; 2018 May; 49(3):143-151. PubMed ID: 28958161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Music and quality of life in early-deafened late-implanted adult cochlear implant users.
    Fuller C; Mallinckrodt L; Maat B; Başkent D; Free R
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Aug; 34(6):1041-7. PubMed ID: 23823145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Temporal Cues in the Judgment of Music Emotion for Normal and Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Pathre T; Marozeau J
    Trends Hear; 2023; 27():23312165231170501. PubMed ID: 37097919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Effect of Frequency Response Manipulations on Musical Sound Quality for Cochlear Implant Users.
    Mo J; Jiam NT; Deroche MLD; Jiradejvong P; Limb CJ
    Trends Hear; 2022; 26():23312165221120017. PubMed ID: 35983700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. A subjective evaluation of different music preprocessing approaches in cochlear implant listeners.
    Gauer J; Nagathil A; Lentz B; Völter C; Martin R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2023 Feb; 153(2):1307. PubMed ID: 36859137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Speech quality evaluation of a sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm with normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():175-85. PubMed ID: 26232529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.