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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31592902)

  • 1. Interaction Between Electric and Acoustic Stimulation Influences Speech Perception in Ipsilateral EAS Users.
    Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(4):868-882. PubMed ID: 31592902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing.
    Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Ear Hear; 2022; 43(2):631-645. PubMed ID: 34593687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Speech Perception With Combined Electric-Acoustic Stimulation: A Simulation and Model Comparison.
    Rader T; Adel Y; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):e314-25. PubMed ID: 25989069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Chronic Electro-Acoustic Stimulation May Interfere With Electric Threshold Recovery After Cochlear Implantation in the Aged Guinea Pig.
    Reiss LAJ; Lawrence MB; Omelchenko IA; He W; Kirk JR
    Ear Hear; 2024 Nov-Dec 01; 45(6):1554-1567. PubMed ID: 38992863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Frequency-to-Place Mismatch: Characterizing Variability and the Influence on Speech Perception Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Canfarotta MW; Dillon MT; Buss E; Pillsbury HC; Brown KD; O'Connell BP
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1349-1361. PubMed ID: 32205726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Ipsilateral masking between acoustic and electric stimulations.
    Lin P; Turner CW; Gantz BJ; Djalilian HR; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Aug; 130(2):858-65. PubMed ID: 21877801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
    Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The role of electroneural versus electrophonic stimulation on psychoacoustic electric-acoustic masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing.
    Kipping D; Krüger B; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2020 Sep; 395():108036. PubMed ID: 32736202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Effects of hearing aid settings for electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Dillon MT; Buss E; Pillsbury HC; Adunka OF; Buchman CA; Adunka MC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):133-40. PubMed ID: 24828214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.
    Gifford RH; Davis TJ; Sunderhaus LW; Menapace C; Buck B; Crosson J; O'Neill L; Beiter A; Segel P
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):539-553. PubMed ID: 28301392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
    Gifford RH; Stecker GC
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
    Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
    Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.