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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28660253)

  • 21. The Relationship Between Environmental Sound Awareness and Speech Recognition Skills in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users.
    Harris MS; Boyce L; Pisoni DB; Shafiro V; Moberly AC
    Otol Neurotol; 2017 Oct; 38(9):e308-e314. PubMed ID: 28731964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Availability of binaural cues for pediatric bilateral cochlear implant recipients.
    Sheffield SW; Haynes DS; Wanna GB; Labadie RF; Gifford RH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):289-98. PubMed ID: 25751696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.
    Winn MB; Won JH; Moon IJ
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(6):e377-e390. PubMed ID: 27438871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Pitch and lexical tone perception of bilingual English-Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant recipients, hearing aid users, and normally hearing listeners.
    Looi V; Teo ER; Loo J
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 3():S91-S104. PubMed ID: 26561892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Lexical-Access Ability and Cognitive Predictors of Speech Recognition in Noise in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.
    Kaandorp MW; Smits C; Merkus P; Festen JM; Goverts ST
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517743887. PubMed ID: 29205095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The Effect of Learning Modality and Auditory Feedback on Word Memory: Cochlear-Implanted versus Normal-Hearing Adults.
    Taitelbaum-Swead R; Icht M; Mama Y
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Mar; 28(3):222-231. PubMed ID: 28277213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users?
    Capretta NR; Moberly AC
    Laryngoscope; 2016 Mar; 126(3):699-706. PubMed ID: 26256441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Amplitude Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition in Late-Implanted Prelingually and Postlingually Deafened Cochlear Implant Users.
    De Ruiter AM; Debruyne JA; Chenault MN; Francart T; Brokx JP
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(5):557-66. PubMed ID: 25851075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Cochlear Implants in Adults: Effects of Age and Duration of Deafness on Speech Recognition.
    Beyea JA; McMullen KP; Harris MS; Houston DM; Martin JM; Bolster VA; Adunka OF; Moberly AC
    Otol Neurotol; 2016 Oct; 37(9):1238-45. PubMed ID: 27466894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing.
    Peng SC; Tomblin JB; Turner CW
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):336-51. PubMed ID: 18344873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Neurocognitive Factors Contributing to Cochlear Implant Candidacy.
    Moberly AC; Castellanos I; Mattingly JK
    Otol Neurotol; 2018 Dec; 39(10):e1010-e1018. PubMed ID: 30444846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Recovery function of the late auditory evoked potential in cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Zhang F; Samy RN; Anderson JM; Houston L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2009; 20(7):397-408. PubMed ID: 19928394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Speech perception in children with cochlear implants: effects of lexical difficulty, talker variability, and word length.
    Kirk KI; Hay-McCutcheon M; Sehgal ST; Miyamoto RT
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 2000 Dec; 185():79-81. PubMed ID: 11141016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Non-native listeners' recognition of high-variability speech using PRESTO.
    Tamati TN; Pisoni DB
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Oct; 25(9):869-92. PubMed ID: 25405842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The Enigma of Poor Performance by Adults With Cochlear Implants.
    Moberly AC; Bates C; Harris MS; Pisoni DB
    Otol Neurotol; 2016 Dec; 37(10):1522-1528. PubMed ID: 27631833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Recognition of time-distorted sentences by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Fu QJ; Galvin JJ; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Jan; 109(1):379-84. PubMed ID: 11206166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Listening in Noise Remains a Significant Challenge for Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence from Early Deafened and Those with Progressive Hearing Loss Compared to Peers with Normal Hearing.
    Zaltz Y; Bugannim Y; Zechoval D; Kishon-Rabin L; Perez R
    J Clin Med; 2020 May; 9(5):. PubMed ID: 32397101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Word Recognition Variability With Cochlear Implants: The Degradation of Phonemic Sensitivity.
    Moberly AC; Lowenstein JH; Nittrouer S
    Otol Neurotol; 2016 Jun; 37(5):470-7. PubMed ID: 26967255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Understanding excessive SNR loss in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Grant KW; Walden TC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Apr; 24(4):258-73; quiz 337-8. PubMed ID: 23636208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The effects of aging on speech perception in noise: comparison between normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Jin SH; Liu C; Sladen DP
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014; 25(7):656-65. PubMed ID: 25365368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.