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 *

185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29335454)

  • 41. Music perception in cochlear implant users and its relationship with psychophysical capabilities.
    Drennan WR; Rubinstein JT
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2008; 45(5):779-89. PubMed ID: 18816426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Loud Music Exposure and Cochlear Synaptopathy in Young Adults: Isolated Auditory Brainstem Response Effects but No Perceptual Consequences.
    Grose JH; Buss E; Hall JW
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517737417. PubMed ID: 29105620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. From fragments to the whole: a comparison between cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners in music perception and enjoyment.
    Alexander AJ; Bartel L; Friesen L; Shipp D; Chen J
    J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2011 Feb; 40(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 21303594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Influence of implantable hearing aids and neuroprosthesison music perception.
    Rahne T; Böhme L; Götze G
    ScientificWorldJournal; 2012; 2012():404590. PubMed ID: 22645422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. A Randomized Controlled Crossover Study of the Impact of Online Music Training on Pitch and Timbre Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Jiam NT; Deroche ML; Jiradejvong P; Limb CJ
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2019 Jun; 20(3):247-262. PubMed ID: 30815761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Perception of Sung Speech in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.
    Crew JD; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
    Trends Hear; 2016 Nov; 20():. PubMed ID: 27837051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Technological, biological, and acoustical constraints to music perception in cochlear implant users.
    Limb CJ; Roy AT
    Hear Res; 2014 Feb; 308():13-26. PubMed ID: 23665130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Recognition of "real-world" musical excerpts by cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults.
    Gfeller K; Olszewski C; Rychener M; Sena K; Knutson JF; Witt S; Macpherson B
    Ear Hear; 2005 Jun; 26(3):237-50. PubMed ID: 15937406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Comparison of music perception in bilateral and unilateral cochlear implant users and normal-hearing subjects.
    Veekmans K; Ressel L; Mueller J; Vischer M; Brockmeier SJ
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14(5):315-26. PubMed ID: 19372650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Evaluation of Cochlear Implant Candidates using a Non-linguistic Spectrotemporal Modulation Detection Test.
    Choi JE; Hong SH; Won JH; Park HS; Cho YS; Chung WH; Cho YS; Moon IJ
    Sci Rep; 2016 Oct; 6():35235. PubMed ID: 27731425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Interaction Between Pitch and Timbre Perception in Normal-Hearing Listeners and Cochlear Implant Users.
    Luo X; Soslowsky S; Pulling KR
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2019 Feb; 20(1):57-72. PubMed ID: 30377852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Spectrotemporal Modulation Sensitivity in Cochlear-Implant and Normal-Hearing Listeners: Is the Performance Driven by Temporal or Spectral Modulation Sensitivity?
    Zhou N; Dixon S; Zhu Z; Dong L; Weiner M
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520948385. PubMed ID: 32895024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Reaction Time Sensitivity to Spectrotemporal Modulations of Sound.
    Veugen LCE; van Opstal AJ; van Wanrooij MM
    Trends Hear; 2022; 26():23312165221127589. PubMed ID: 36172759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. The MuSIC perception test: a novel battery for testing music perception of cochlear implant users.
    Brockmeier SJ; Fitzgerald D; Searle O; Fitzgerald H; Grasmeder M; Hilbig S; Vermiere K; Peterreins M; Heydner S; Arnold W
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2011 Feb; 12(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 21756454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. The music perception abilities of prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants.
    Stabej KK; Smid L; Gros A; Zargi M; Kosir A; Vatovec J
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2012 Oct; 76(10):1392-400. PubMed ID: 22835930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Clinical assessment of music perception in Korean cochlear implant listeners.
    Jung KH; Cho YS; Cho JK; Park GY; Kim EY; Hong SH; Chung WH; Won JH; Rubinstein JT
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2010 Jun; 130(6):716-23. PubMed ID: 19958251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. Melodic contour identification by cochlear implant listeners.
    Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Nogaki G
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):302-19. PubMed ID: 17485980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Music complexity prediction for cochlear implant listeners based on a feature-based linear regression model.
    Nagathil A; Schlattmann JW; Neumann K; Martin R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jul; 144(1):1. PubMed ID: 30075690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Music perception improves in children with bilateral cochlear implants or bimodal devices.
    Polonenko MJ; Giannantonio S; Papsin BC; Marsella P; Gordon KA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4494. PubMed ID: 28679263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.