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 *

233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35394798)

  • 21. Acceptance and Benefits of Electro-Acoustic Stimulation for Conventional-Length Electrode Arrays.
    Spitzer ER; Waltzman SB; Landsberger DM; Friedmann DR
    Audiol Neurootol; 2021; 26(1):17-26. PubMed ID: 32721977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise.
    Pals C; Sarampalis A; van Dijk M; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 29757801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Influence of Test Condition on Speech Perception With Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
    Dillon MT; Buss E; Adunka OF; Buchman CA; Pillsbury HC
    Am J Audiol; 2015 Dec; 24(4):520-8. PubMed ID: 26650652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Potential Benefits of an Integrated Electric-Acoustic Sound Processor with Children: A Preliminary Report.
    Wolfe J; Neumann S; Schafer E; Marsh M; Wood M; Baker RS
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Feb; 28(2):127-140. PubMed ID: 28240980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Speech Recognition and Subjective Hearing Abilities for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Users With Unilateral Hearing Loss.
    Dillon MT; Buss E; Thompson NJ; Richter ME; Davis AG; Overton AB; Rooth MA; Canfarotta MW; Selleck AM; Dedmon MM; Brown KD
    Otol Neurotol; 2024 Oct; 45(9):1006-1011. PubMed ID: 39165094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Interactions Between Slopes of Residual Hearing and Frequency Maps in Simulated Bimodal and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Hearing.
    Yoon YS; Straw S
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2024 Jan; 67(1):282-295. PubMed ID: 38092067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Speech masking release in Hybrid cochlear implant users: Roles of spectral and temporal cues in electric-acoustic hearing.
    Tejani VD; Brown CJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 May; 147(5):3667. PubMed ID: 32486815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) with the Naída CI Q90 sound processor in experienced cochlear implant users.
    Battmer RD; Scholz S; Geissler G; Ernst A
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2019 Nov; 20(6):331-340. PubMed ID: 31464168
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Electrocochleography-Based Tonotopic Map: II. Frequency-to-Place Mismatch Impacts Speech-Perception Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Walia A; Shew MA; Varghese J; Lefler SM; Bhat A; Ortmann AJ; Herzog JA; Buchman CA
    Ear Hear; 2024 Nov-Dec 01; 45(6):1406-1417. PubMed ID: 38880958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Association Between Flat-Panel Computed Tomographic Imaging-Guided Place-Pitch Mapping and Speech and Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Jiam NT; Gilbert M; Cooke D; Jiradejvong P; Barrett K; Caldwell M; Limb CJ
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2019 Feb; 145(2):109-116. PubMed ID: 30477013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Differences in neural encoding of speech in noise between cochlear implant users with and without preserved acoustic hearing.
    Shim H; Kim S; Hong J; Na Y; Woo J; Hansen M; Gantz B; Choi I
    Hear Res; 2023 Jan; 427():108649. PubMed ID: 36462377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears.
    Willis S; Moore BCJ; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(10):e0240752. PubMed ID: 33057396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. An overview of factors affecting bimodal and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) speech understanding outcomes.
    Payne J; Au A; Dowell RC
    Hear Res; 2023 Apr; 431():108736. PubMed ID: 36931019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Short-term observation of electrical acoustic stimulation in patients with low frequency residual hearing after cochlear implant].
    Wang RJ; Luo JF; Chao XH; Hu FX; Fan ZM; Xu L; Wang HB
    Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2023 Dec; 58(12):1173-1182. PubMed ID: 38186091
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Optimizing maps for electric acoustic stimulation users.
    Yoon YS; Shin YR; Kim JM; Coltisor A; Chun YM
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2019 May; 20(3):106-115. PubMed ID: 30694120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.