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 *

226 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31161338)

  • 1. A Site-Selection Strategy Based on Polarity Sensitivity for Cochlear Implants: Effects on Spectro-Temporal Resolution and Speech Perception.
    Goehring T; Archer-Boyd A; Deeks JM; Arenberg JG; Carlyon RP
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2019 Aug; 20(4):431-448. PubMed ID: 31161338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of Two Spectro-Temporal Ripple Tests and Their Relation to the Matrix Speech-in-Noise Sentence Test in Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    van Groesen NRA; Briaire JJ; Frijns JHM
    Ear Hear; 2023 Sep-Oct 01; 44(5):1221-1228. PubMed ID: 37046376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Polarity Sensitivity as a Potential Correlate of Neural Degeneration in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Mesnildrey Q; Venail F; Carlyon RP; Macherey O
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2020 Feb; 21(1):89-104. PubMed ID: 32020417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Processing of speech temporal and spectral information by users of auditory brainstem implants and cochlear implants.
    Azadpour M; McKay CM
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(5):e192-203. PubMed ID: 25010634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of pulse shape on pitch sensitivity of cochlear implant users.
    Arslan NO; Luo X
    Hear Res; 2024 Sep; 450():109075. PubMed ID: 38986164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Detection Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Users: Relationships with Average Threshold, Gap Detection, and Rate Discrimination.
    Carlyon RP; Cosentino S; Deeks JM; Parkinson W; Arenberg JG
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Oct; 19(5):559-567. PubMed ID: 29881937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Dynamic Current Focusing Compared to Monopolar Stimulation in a Take-Home Trial of Cochlear Implant Users.
    van Groesen NRA; Briaire JJ; de Jong MAM; Frijns JHM
    Ear Hear; 2023 Mar-Apr 01; 44(2):306-317. PubMed ID: 36279119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effects of site-specific level adjustments on speech recognition with cochlear implants.
    Zhou N; Pfingst BE
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(1):30-40. PubMed ID: 24225651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Spectro-temporal cues enhance modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
    Zheng Y; Escabí M; Litovsky RY
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():45-54. PubMed ID: 28601530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Polarity Sensitivity in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519862987. PubMed ID: 31373266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Monopolar Detection Thresholds Predict Spatial Selectivity of Neural Excitation in Cochlear Implants: Implications for Speech Recognition.
    Zhou N
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(10):e0165476. PubMed ID: 27798658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Contribution of Verbal Learning & Memory and Spectro-Temporal Discrimination to Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Harris MS; Hamel BL; Wichert K; Kozlowski K; Mleziva S; Ray C; Pisoni DB; Kronenberger WG; Moberly AC
    Laryngoscope; 2023 Mar; 133(3):661-669. PubMed ID: 35567421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An online implementation of a measure of spectro-temporal processing by cochlear-implant listeners.
    Archer-Boyd AW; Harland A; Goehring T; Carlyon RP
    JASA Express Lett; 2023 Jan; 3(1):014402. PubMed ID: 36725534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.
    Baudhuin J; Cadieux J; Firszt JB; Reeder RM; Maxson JL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):302-12. PubMed ID: 22533974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.
    Winn MB; Won JH; Moon IJ
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(6):e377-e390. PubMed ID: 27438871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test With the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Lawler M; Yu J; Aronoff JM
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(6):760-766. PubMed ID: 28957975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Psychoacoustic abilities associated with music perception in cochlear implant users.
    Won JH; Drennan WR; Kang RS; Rubinstein JT
    Ear Hear; 2010 Dec; 31(6):796-805. PubMed ID: 20595901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of Pulse Rate and Polarity on the Sensitivity of Auditory Brainstem and Cochlear Implant Users to Electrical Stimulation.
    Carlyon RP; Deeks JM; McKay CM
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Oct; 16(5):653-68. PubMed ID: 26138501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Pulse-rate discrimination deficit in cochlear implant users: is the upper limit of pitch peripheral or central?
    Zhou N; Mathews J; Dong L
    Hear Res; 2019 Jan; 371():1-10. PubMed ID: 30423498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations.
    Berenstein CK; Mens LH; Mulder JJ; Vanpoucke FJ
    Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):250-60. PubMed ID: 18595189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.