BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29195427)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Electric and acoustic harmonic integration predicts speech-in-noise performance in hybrid cochlear implant users.
    Bonnard D; Schwalje A; Gantz B; Choi I
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():223-230. PubMed ID: 29980380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Musical pitch and lexical tone perception with cochlear implants.
    Wang W; Zhou N; Xu L
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Apr; 50(4):270-8. PubMed ID: 21190394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effects of insertion depth on spatial speech perception in noise for simulations of cochlear implants and single-sided deafness.
    Zhou X; Li H; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Yuan W
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S41-S48. PubMed ID: 27367147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Melodic interval perception with acoustic and electric hearing in bimodal and single-sided deaf cochlear implant listeners.
    Spitzer ER; Galvin JJ; Friedmann DR; Landsberger DM
    Hear Res; 2021 Feb; 400():108136. PubMed ID: 33310263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Head shadow enhancement with low-frequency beamforming improves sound localization and speech perception for simulated bimodal listeners.
    Dieudonné B; Francart T
    Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():78-84. PubMed ID: 29555110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Categorisation of natural sounds at different stages of auditory recovery in cochlear implant adult deaf patients.
    Strelnikov K; Collett E; Gaillard P; Truy E; Déguine O; Marx M; Barone P
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():182-194. PubMed ID: 29914727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
    Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. A cochlear implant user with exceptional musical hearing ability.
    Maarefvand M; Marozeau J; Blamey PJ
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 52(6):424-32. PubMed ID: 23509878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.