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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34380982)

  • 1. Evaluation of a Tool for Measuring Temporal Modulation Detection.
    Landsberger DM; Stupak N
    Ear Hear; 2022; 43(2):448-459. PubMed ID: 34380982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Amplitude Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition in Late-Implanted Prelingually and Postlingually Deafened Cochlear Implant Users.
    De Ruiter AM; Debruyne JA; Chenault MN; Francart T; Brokx JP
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(5):557-66. PubMed ID: 25851075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing the Quality of Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing: Implications for Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation With Cochlear Implants.
    Spitzer ER; Landsberger DM; Friedmann DR
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(2):475-486. PubMed ID: 32976249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Behavioral Measures of Temporal Processing and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Blankenship C; Zhang F; Keith R
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Oct; 27(9):701-713. PubMed ID: 27718347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Within- and across-frequency temporal processing and speech perception in cochlear implant users.
    Blankenship CM; Meinzen-Derr J; Zhang F
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(10):e0275772. PubMed ID: 36227872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effects of aging on speech perception in noise: comparison between normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Jin SH; Liu C; Sladen DP
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014; 25(7):656-65. PubMed ID: 25365368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Nonlinguistic Outcome Measures in Adult Cochlear Implant Users Over the First Year of Implantation.
    Drennan WR; Won JH; Timme AO; Rubinstein JT
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):354-64. PubMed ID: 26656317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Electric and acoustic harmonic integration predicts speech-in-noise performance in hybrid cochlear implant users.
    Bonnard D; Schwalje A; Gantz B; Choi I
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():223-230. PubMed ID: 29980380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Spectral-Temporal Trade-Off in Vocoded Sentence Recognition: Effects of Age, Hearing Thresholds, and Working Memory.
    Shader MJ; Yancey CM; Gordon-Salant S; Goupell MJ
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1226-1235. PubMed ID: 32032222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Binaural Optimization of Cochlear Implants: Discarding Frequency Content Without Sacrificing Head-Shadow Benefit.
    Sheffield SW; Goupell MJ; Spencer NJ; Stakhovskaya OA; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(3):576-590. PubMed ID: 31436754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Timbre and speech perception in bimodal and bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.
    Kong YY; Mullangi A; Marozeau J
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):645-59. PubMed ID: 22677814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Spectrotemporal Modulation Sensitivity in Cochlear-Implant and Normal-Hearing Listeners: Is the Performance Driven by Temporal or Spectral Modulation Sensitivity?
    Zhou N; Dixon S; Zhu Z; Dong L; Weiner M
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520948385. PubMed ID: 32895024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Effect of Hearing Aid Bandwidth and Configuration of Hearing Loss on Bimodal Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Neuman AC; Zeman A; Neukam J; Wang B; Svirsky MA
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(3):621-635. PubMed ID: 30067559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Temporal Fine Structure Processing, Pitch, and Speech Perception in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Dincer D'Alessandro H; Ballantyne D; Boyle PJ; De Seta E; DeVincentiis M; Mancini P
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(4):679-686. PubMed ID: 29194080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Role of slow temporal modulations in speech identification for cochlear implant users.
    Gnansia D; Lazard DS; Léger AC; Fugain C; Lancelin D; Meyer B; Lorenzi C
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):48-54. PubMed ID: 24195655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Clinical Outcomes of the Cochlear™ Nucleus(®) 5 Cochlear Implant System and SmartSound™ 2 Signal Processing.
    Runge CL; Henion K; Tarima S; Beiter A; Zwolan TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Jun; 27(6):425-440. PubMed ID: 27310402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.