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 *

261 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32339775)

  • 21. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
    Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
    Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.
    Rana B; Buchholz JM; Morgan C; Sharma M; Weller T; Konganda SA; Shirai K; Kawano A
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517722106. PubMed ID: 28752811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.
    Carroll J; Tiaden S; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2054-62. PubMed ID: 21973360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants.
    Ali H; Hazrati O; Tobey EA; Hansen JH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):EL242. PubMed ID: 25190428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A bio-inspired coding (BIC) strategy for cochlear implants.
    Tabibi S; Kegel A; Lai WK; Dillier N
    Hear Res; 2020 Mar; 388():107885. PubMed ID: 32035288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Voice gender discrimination provides a measure of more than pitch-related perception in cochlear implant users.
    Li T; Fu QJ
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):498-502. PubMed ID: 21696330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effects of Stimulation Rate With the FS4 and HDCIS Coding Strategies in Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Riss D; Hamzavi JS; Blineder M; Flak S; Baumgartner WD; Kaider A; Arnoldner C
    Otol Neurotol; 2016 Aug; 37(7):882-8. PubMed ID: 27295444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Overlapping frequency coverage and simulated spatial cue effects on bimodal (electrical and acoustical) sentence recognition in noise.
    Green T; Faulkner A; Rosen S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Feb; 135(2):851-61. PubMed ID: 25234893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Predicting the speech reception threshold of cochlear implant listeners using an envelope-correlation based measure.
    Yousefian N; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3399-405. PubMed ID: 23145620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Speech perception in simulated electric hearing exploits information-bearing acoustic change.
    Stilp CE; Goupell MJ; Kluender KR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Feb; 133(2):EL136-41. PubMed ID: 23363194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Optimising the effect of noise reduction algorithm ClearVoice in cochlear implant users by increasing the maximum comfort levels.
    Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):230-235. PubMed ID: 29065731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
    Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1246. PubMed ID: 25190398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Utility of bilateral acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant.
    Plant K; Babic L
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S31-8. PubMed ID: 26987051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The effect of presentation level and stimulation rate on speech perception and modulation detection for cochlear implant users.
    Brochier T; McDermott HJ; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4097. PubMed ID: 28618807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Adding simultaneous stimulating channels to reduce power consumption in cochlear implants.
    Langner F; Saoji AA; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 345():96-107. PubMed ID: 28104408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Spectral contrast enhancement improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implants.
    Nogueira W; Rode T; Büchner A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):728-39. PubMed ID: 26936556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.