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 *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29172895)

  • 1. Optimal gain control step sizes for bimodal stimulation.
    Spirrov D; van Dijk B; Francart T
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):184-193. PubMed ID: 29172895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
    Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
    Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients.
    Vroegop JL; Homans NC; Goedegebure A; van der Schroeff MP
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):858-863. PubMed ID: 30261771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Referral rates of postlingually deafened adult hearing aid users for a cochlear implant candidacy assessment.
    Looi V; Bluett C; Boisvert I
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Dec; 56(12):919-925. PubMed ID: 28678547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
    Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Fitting recommendations and clinical benefit associated with use of the NAL-NL2 hearing-aid prescription in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients.
    English R; Plant K; Maciejczyk M; Cowan R
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S45-50. PubMed ID: 26853233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Acoustic, aerodynamic, and perceptual analyses of the voice of cochlear-implanted children.
    Guerrero Lopez HA; Mondain M; Amy de la Bretèque B; Serrafero P; Trottier C; Barkat-Defradas M
    J Voice; 2013 Jul; 27(4):523.e1-17. PubMed ID: 23809572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.
    Srinivasan AG; Padilla M; Shannon RV; Landsberger DM
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():29-36. PubMed ID: 23467170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Objective assessment of electrode discrimination with the auditory change complex in adult cochlear implant users.
    Mathew R; Undurraga J; Li G; Meerton L; Boyle P; Shaida A; Selvadurai D; Jiang D; Vickers D
    Hear Res; 2017 Oct; 354():86-101. PubMed ID: 28826636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system.
    Holden LK; Reeder RM; Firszt JB; Finley CC
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Apr; 50(4):255-69. PubMed ID: 21275500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessing auditory nerve condition by tone decay in deaf subjects with a cochlear implant.
    Wasmann JA; van Eijl RHM; Versnel H; van Zanten GA
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):864-871. PubMed ID: 30261773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Bimodal benefits in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users with contralateral residual acoustic hearing.
    Yang HI; Zeng FG
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S17-S22. PubMed ID: 28485635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Categorical loudness scaling in cochlear implant recipients.
    Busby PA; Au A
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Nov; 56(11):862-869. PubMed ID: 28639840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Pitch matching in bimodal cochlear implant patients: Effects of frequency, spectral envelope, and level.
    Maarefvand M; Blamey PJ; Marozeau J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):2854. PubMed ID: 29195427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Comparing the Effect of Different Hearing Aid Fitting Methods in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.
    Vroegop JL; Dingemanse JG; van der Schroeff MP; Goedegebure A
    Am J Audiol; 2019 Mar; 28(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 30383163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Perceptual Differences Between Low-Frequency Analog and Pulsatile Stimulation as Shown by Single- and Multidimensional Scaling.
    Stupak N; Padilla M; Morse RP; Landsberger DM
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518807535. PubMed ID: 30378468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimising the effect of noise reduction algorithm ClearVoice in cochlear implant users by increasing the maximum comfort levels.
    Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):230-235. PubMed ID: 29065731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.