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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29508662)

  • 1. A potential neurophysiological correlate of electric-acoustic pitch matching in adult cochlear implant users: Pilot data.
    Tan CT; Martin BA; Svirsky MA
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2018 Jul; 19(4):198-209. PubMed ID: 29508662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A preliminary study to identify a neurophysiological correlate of electroacoustic pitch matching in cochlear implant users.
    Chin-Tuan Tan
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2017 Jul; 2017():1162-1165. PubMed ID: 29060081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Pitch Matching between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Contralateral Ear with Residual Hearing.
    Tan CT; Martin B; Svirsky MA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Mar; 28(3):187-199. PubMed ID: 28277210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Place dependent stimulation rates improve pitch perception in cochlear implantees with single-sided deafness.
    Rader T; Döge J; Adel Y; Weissgerber T; Baumann U
    Hear Res; 2016 Sep; 339():94-103. PubMed ID: 27374479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Electro-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant: Is there a need for adjustment of the default frequency allocation tables?
    Peters JPM; Bennink E; Grolman W; van Zanten GA
    Hear Res; 2016 Dec; 342():124-133. PubMed ID: 27789255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using Neural Response Telemetry to Monitor Physiological Responses to Acoustic Stimulation in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.
    Abbas PJ; Tejani VD; Scheperle RA; Brown CJ
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(4):409-425. PubMed ID: 28085738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation.
    Reiss LA; Turner CW; Karsten SA; Gantz BJ
    Neuroscience; 2014 Jan; 256():43-52. PubMed ID: 24157931
    [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. Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations.
    Blamey PJ; Dooley GJ; Parisi ES; Clark GM
    Hear Res; 1996 Sep; 99(1-2):139-50. PubMed ID: 8970822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Electric to acoustic pitch matching: a possible way to improve individual cochlear implant fitting.
    Nardo WD; Cantore I; Marchese MR; Cianfrone F; Scorpecci A; Giannantonio S; Paludetti G
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2008 Nov; 265(11):1321-8. PubMed ID: 18379812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cortical Processing of Frequency Changes Reflected by the Acoustic Change Complex in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.
    Liang C; Houston LM; Samy RN; Abedelrehim LMI; Zhang F
    Audiol Neurootol; 2018; 23(3):152-164. PubMed ID: 30300882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Pure-Tone Masking Patterns for Monopolar and Phantom Electrical Stimulation in Cochlear Implants.
    Saoji AA; Koka K; Litvak LM; Finley CC
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):124-130. PubMed ID: 28700446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A direct comparison of voice pitch processing in acoustic and electric hearing.
    Steinmetzger K; Meinhardt B; Praetorius M; Andermann M; Rupp A
    Neuroimage Clin; 2022; 36():103188. PubMed ID: 36113196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparison of Place-versus-Pitch Mismatch between a Perimodiolar and Lateral Wall Cochlear Implant Electrode Array in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant.
    Peters JPM; Bennink E; van Zanten GA
    Audiol Neurootol; 2019; 24(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 30995658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Electrophysiological evidence for altered visual, but not auditory, selective attention in adolescent cochlear implant users.
    Harris J; Kamke MR
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2014 Nov; 78(11):1908-16. PubMed ID: 25242699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.