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 *

271 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27106306)

  • 1. Rate discrimination at low pulse rates in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners: Influence of intracochlear stimulation site.
    Stahl P; Macherey O; Meunier S; Roman S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Apr; 139(4):1578. PubMed ID: 27106306
    [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. Interaural envelope correlation change discrimination in bilateral cochlear implantees: effects of mismatch, centering, and onset of deafness.
    Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1282-97. PubMed ID: 25786942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of pulse shape on pitch sensitivity of cochlear implant users.
    Arslan NO; Luo X
    Hear Res; 2024 Sep; 450():109075. PubMed ID: 38986164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Rate pitch discrimination in cochlear implant users with the use of double pulses and different interpulse intervals.
    Pieper SH; Bahmer A
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2019 Nov; 20(6):312-323. PubMed ID: 31448701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cochlear Implant Rate Pitch and Melody Perception as a Function of Place and Number of Electrodes.
    Marimuthu V; Swanson BA; Mannell R
    Trends Hear; 2016 Apr; 20():. PubMed ID: 27094028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Sequential stream segregation in normally-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Tejani VD; Schvartz-Leyzac KC; Chatterjee M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jan; 141(1):50. PubMed ID: 28147600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant listeners via single electrode stimulation in relation to speech perception.
    Liebscher T; Alberter K; Hoppe U
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Dec; 57(12):933-940. PubMed ID: 30295156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.
    Boëx C; Baud L; Cosendai G; Sigrist A; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 7(2):110-24. PubMed ID: 16450213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of Monaural Temporal Electrode Asynchrony and Channel Interactions in Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear-Implant Stimulation.
    Lindenbeck MJ; Majdak P; Laback B
    Trends Hear; 2024; 28():23312165241271340. PubMed ID: 39215517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dynamic current steering with phantom electrode in cochlear implants.
    Luo X; Garrett C
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107949. PubMed ID: 32200300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Training improves cochlear implant rate discrimination on a psychophysical task.
    Goldsworthy RL; Shannon RV
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):334-41. PubMed ID: 24437773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. New parallel stimulation strategies revisited: effect of synchronous multi electrode stimulation on rate discrimination in cochlear implant users.
    Bahmer A; Baumann U
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2013 Jun; 14(3):142-9. PubMed ID: 22733121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Differences in the temporal course of interaural time difference sensitivity between acoustic and electric hearing in amplitude modulated stimuli.
    Hu H; Ewert SD; McAlpine D; Dietz M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1862. PubMed ID: 28372072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.
    Debruyne JA; Francart T; Janssen AM; Douma K; Brokx JP
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):174-185. PubMed ID: 27758152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
    Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1246. PubMed ID: 25190398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Discrimination of intonation contours by adolescents with cochlear implants.
    Holt CM; McDermott HJ
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Dec; 52(12):808-15. PubMed ID: 24053225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.