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.
4. Cochlear implant hearing performance at the University of Minnesota. Kimberley BP; Lee A; Scheller L; Levine S; Adams G; Nelson DA J Otolaryngol; 1989 Feb; 18(1):24-7. PubMed ID: 2921782 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Surgical considerations and hearing results with the UCSF/Storz cochlear implant. Schindler RA; Kessler DK; Rebscher SJ; Jackler RK; Merzenich MM Laryngoscope; 1987 Jan; 97(1):50-6. PubMed ID: 3796176 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Perception of connected speech without lipreading, using a multi-channel hearing prosthesis. Dowell RC; Clark GM; Seligman PM; Brown AM Acta Otolaryngol; 1986; 102(1-2):7-11. PubMed ID: 3755563 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Use of a multichannel cochlear implant in the congenitally and prelingually deaf population. Waltzman SB; Cohen NL; Shapiro WH Laryngoscope; 1992 Apr; 102(4):395-9. PubMed ID: 1556888 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A multiple-channel cochlear implant. Evaluation using speech tracking. Martin LF; Tong YC; Clark GM Arch Otolaryngol; 1981 Mar; 107(3):157-9. PubMed ID: 6894085 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Speech recognition ability as a function of duration of deafness in multichannel cochlear implant patients. Shea JJ; Domico EH; Orchik DJ Laryngoscope; 1990 Mar; 100(3):223-6. PubMed ID: 2308444 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Factors Affecting Speech Perception Improvement Post Implantation in Congenitally Deaf Adults. O'Gara SJ; Cullington HE; Grasmeder ML; Adamou M; Matthews ES Ear Hear; 2016; 37(6):671-679. PubMed ID: 27779517 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Pre-implant evaluation of speech and hearing. Abel SM; Tse SM J Otolaryngol; 1987 Oct; 16(5):284-9. PubMed ID: 3682048 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. UCH/RNID single channel extracochlear implant: results in thirty profoundly deafened adults. Cooper HR; Carpenter L; Aleksy W; Booth CL; Read TE; Graham JM; Fraser JG J Laryngol Otol Suppl; 1989; 18():22-38. PubMed ID: 2607192 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Prosodic and segmental aspects of speech perception with the House/3M single-channel implant. Rosen S; Walliker J; Brimacombe JA; Edgerton BJ J Speech Hear Res; 1989 Mar; 32(1):93-111. PubMed ID: 2704206 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The cochlear implant: a comparison of single-channel and multichannel results. Doyle PJ; Pijl S; Noel FJ J Otolaryngol; 1991 Jun; 20(3):204-8. PubMed ID: 1870169 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Patient performance over eighteen months with the Ineraid intracochlear implant. Gray RF; Quinn SJ; Court I; Vanat Z; Baguley DM Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():275-7. PubMed ID: 7668667 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Speech processing for a multiple-electrode cochlear implant hearing prosthesis. Tong YC; Clark GM; Seligman PM; Patrick JF J Acoust Soc Am; 1980 Dec; 68(6):1897-8. PubMed ID: 6893993 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Clinical trial of a multiple-channel cochlear prosthesis. An initial study in four patients with profound total hearing loss. Clark GM; Dowell RC; Brown AM; Luscombe SM; Pyman BC; Webb RL; Bailey QR; Seligman PM; Tong YC Med J Aust; 1983 Oct; 2(9):430-3. PubMed ID: 6355794 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]