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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31838317)

  • 1. Rating the overall speech quality of hearing-impaired children by means of comparative judgements.
    Boonen N; Kloots H; Gillis S
    J Commun Disord; 2020; 83():105969. PubMed ID: 31838317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Native and non-native listeners' judgements on the overall speech quality of hearing-impaired children.
    Boonen N; Kloots H; Gillis S
    Clin Linguist Phon; 2020 Dec; 34(12):1149-1168. PubMed ID: 32090641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Can listeners hear the difference between children with normal hearing and children with a hearing impairment?
    Boonen N; Kloots H; Verhoeven J; Gillis S
    Clin Linguist Phon; 2019; 33(4):316-333. PubMed ID: 30188741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sound Quality Effects of an Adaptive Nonlinear Frequency Compression Processor with Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Glista D; Hawkins M; Vaisberg JM; Pourmand N; Parsa V; Scollie S
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019; 30(7):552-563. PubMed ID: 30395533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Is the spontaneous speech of 7-year-old cochlear implanted children as intelligible as that of their normally hearing peers?
    Boonen N; Kloots H; Gillis S
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2020 Jun; 133():109956. PubMed ID: 32097774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Acoustic, aerodynamic, and perceptual analyses of the voice of cochlear-implanted children.
    Guerrero Lopez HA; Mondain M; Amy de la Bretèque B; Serrafero P; Trottier C; Barkat-Defradas M
    J Voice; 2013 Jul; 27(4):523.e1-17. PubMed ID: 23809572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Production of sentence-final intonation contours by hearing-impaired children.
    Allen GD; Arndorfer PM
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2000 Apr; 43(2):441-55. PubMed ID: 10757695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Differences and similarities in early vocabulary development between children with hearing aids and children with cochlear implant enrolled in 3-year auditory verbal intervention.
    Percy-Smith L; Hallstrøm M; Josvassen JL; Mikkelsen JH; Nissen L; Dieleman E; Cayé-Thomasen P
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2018 May; 108():67-72. PubMed ID: 29605368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Acoustic Analysis of Persian Vowels in Cochlear Implant Users: A Comparison With Hearing-impaired Children Using Hearing Aid and Normal-hearing Children.
    Jafari N; Yadegari F; Jalaie S
    J Voice; 2016 Nov; 30(6):763.e1-763.e7. PubMed ID: 26725549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Emotional Responses to Non-Speech Sounds for Hearing-aid and Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
    Tawdrous MM; D'Onofrio KL; Gifford R; Picou EM
    Trends Hear; 2022; 26():23312165221083091. PubMed ID: 35435773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Differences in Perception of Musical Stimuli among Acoustic, Electric, and Combined Modality Listeners.
    Prentiss SM; Friedland DR; Nash JJ; Runge CL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 May; 26(5):494-501. PubMed ID: 26055838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Pitch and lexical tone perception of bilingual English-Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant recipients, hearing aid users, and normally hearing listeners.
    Looi V; Teo ER; Loo J
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 3():S91-S104. PubMed ID: 26561892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Speech quality evaluation of a sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm with normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():175-85. PubMed ID: 26232529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners' Ability to Perceive Minimal Audible Angle Differences.
    Zaleski-King A; Goupell MJ; Barac-Cikoja D; Bakke M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Sep; 30(8):659-671. PubMed ID: 30417825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Nasalance and nasality in children with cochlear implants and children with hearing aids.
    Baudonck N; Van Lierde K; D'haeseleer E; Dhooge I
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2015 Apr; 79(4):541-5. PubMed ID: 25677563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Listeners' perception of lexical stress in the first words of infants with cochlear implants and normally hearing infants.
    De Clerck I; Verhoeven J; Gillis S; Pettinato M; Gillis S
    J Commun Disord; 2019; 80():52-65. PubMed ID: 31078023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing.
    Peng SC; Tomblin JB; Turner CW
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):336-51. PubMed ID: 18344873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Spontaneous speech intelligibility: early cochlear implanted children versus their normally hearing peers at seven years of age.
    Boonen N; Kloots H; Nurzia P; Gillis S
    J Child Lang; 2023 Jan; 50(1):78-103. PubMed ID: 36503545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Hearing impairment and vowel production. A comparison between normally hearing, hearing-aided and cochlear implanted Dutch children.
    Verhoeven J; Hide O; De Maeyer S; Gillis S; Gillis S
    J Commun Disord; 2016; 59():24-39. PubMed ID: 26629749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Individual Variations in Effort: Assessing Pupillometry for the Hearing Impaired.
    Wagner AE; Nagels L; Toffanin P; Opie JM; Başkent D
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519845596. PubMed ID: 31131729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.