300 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30840668)
21. Hearing Preservation Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation Depending on the Angle of Insertion: Indication for Electric or Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
Helbig S; Adel Y; Leinung M; Stöver T; Baumann U; Weissgerber T
Otol Neurotol; 2018 Aug; 39(7):834-841. PubMed ID: 29912820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [Speech perception with electric-acoustic stimulation : Comparison with bilateral cochlear implant users in different noise conditions].
Rader T
HNO; 2015 Feb; 63(2):85-93. PubMed ID: 25515123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Optimizing maps for electric acoustic stimulation users.
Yoon YS; Shin YR; Kim JM; Coltisor A; Chun YM
Cochlear Implants Int; 2019 May; 20(3):106-115. PubMed ID: 30694120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A new combined speech processor for electric and acoustic stimulation--eight months experience.
Helbig S; Baumann U; Helbig M; von Malsen-Waldkirch N; Gstoettner W
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2008; 70(6):359-65. PubMed ID: 18984971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Bilateral electric acoustic stimulation: a comparison of partial and deep cochlear electrode insertion. A longitudinal case study.
Kleine Punte A; Vermeire K; Van de Heyning P
Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 2010; 67():144-152. PubMed ID: 19955731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Outcome evaluation on cochlear implant users with residual hearing.
Neben N; Buechner A; Schuessler M; Lenarz T
Cochlear Implants Int; 2018 Mar; 19(2):88-99. PubMed ID: 29214896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of speech discrimination in noise and directional hearing with 2 different sound processors of a bone-anchored hearing system in adults with unilateral severe or profound sensorineural hearing loss.
Wesarg T; Aschendorff A; Laszig R; Beck R; Schild C; Hassepass F; Kroeger S; Hocke T; Arndt S
Otol Neurotol; 2013 Aug; 34(6):1064-70. PubMed ID: 23856626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Clinical outcomes with the Kanso™ off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor.
Mauger SJ; Jones M; Nel E; Del Dot J
Int J Audiol; 2017 Apr; 56(4):267-276. PubMed ID: 28067077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor.
Mertens G; Hofkens A; Punte AK; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
Otol Neurotol; 2015 Jan; 36(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 25406874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Electric-Acoustic Stimulation After Reimplantation: Hearing Preservation and Speech Perception.
Thompson NJ; Dillon MT; Bucker AL; King ER; Pillsbury HC; Brown KD
Otol Neurotol; 2019 Feb; 40(2):e94-e98. PubMed ID: 30624400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Noise reduction results of an adaptive filtering technique for dual-microphone behind-the-ear hearing aids.
Maj JB; Wouters J; Moonen M
Ear Hear; 2004 Jun; 25(3):215-29. PubMed ID: 15179113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results.
Laszig R; Aschendorff A; Stecker M; Müller-Deile J; Maune S; Dillier N; Weber B; Hey M; Begall K; Lenarz T; Battmer RD; Böhm M; Steffens T; Strutz J; Linder T; Probst R; Allum J; Westhofen M; Doering W
Otol Neurotol; 2004 Nov; 25(6):958-68. PubMed ID: 15547426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Speech perception in noise and sound localization using different microphone modes in pediatric bilateral cochlear implant users.
Müller V; Krause J; Klünter HD; Streicher B; Lang-Roth R
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2022 May; 156():111117. PubMed ID: 35366421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Acceptance and Benefits of Electro-Acoustic Stimulation for Conventional-Length Electrode Arrays.
Spitzer ER; Waltzman SB; Landsberger DM; Friedmann DR
Audiol Neurootol; 2021; 26(1):17-26. PubMed ID: 32721977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Microphone directionality, pre-emphasis filter, and wind noise in cochlear implants.
Chung K; McKibben N
J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Oct; 22(9):586-600. PubMed ID: 22192604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Multicenter US Clinical Trial With an Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) System in Adults: Final Outcomes.
Pillsbury HC; Dillon MT; Buchman CA; Staecker H; Prentiss SM; Ruckenstein MJ; Bigelow DC; Telischi FF; Martinez DM; Runge CL; Friedland DR; Blevins NH; Larky JB; Alexiades G; Kaylie DM; Roland PS; Miyamoto RT; Backous DD; Warren FM; El-Kashlan HK; Slager HK; Reyes C; Racey AI; Adunka OF
Otol Neurotol; 2018 Mar; 39(3):299-305. PubMed ID: 29342054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Speech-in-noise and subjective benefit with active middle ear implant omnidirectional and directional microphones: a within-subjects comparison.
Wolframm MD; Giarbini N; Streitberger C
Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jun; 33(4):618-22. PubMed ID: 22569145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Effectiveness of Directional Microphones in Bilateral/Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users-Impact of Spatial and Temporal Noise Characteristics.
Weissgerber T; Rader T; Baumann U
Otol Neurotol; 2017 Dec; 38(10):e551-e557. PubMed ID: 29135876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Combined electric and acoustic hearing performance with Zebra® speech processor: speech reception, place, and temporal coding evaluation.
Vaerenberg B; Péan V; Lesbros G; De Ceulaer G; Schauwers K; Daemers K; Gnansia D; Govaerts PJ
Cochlear Implants Int; 2013 Jun; 14(3):150-7. PubMed ID: 23321588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
