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 *

213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36333573)

  • 1. A Computational Model of a Single Auditory Nerve Fiber for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
    Kipping D; Nogueira W
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2022 Dec; 23(6):835-858. PubMed ID: 36333573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effectiveness of Place-based Mapping in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Devices.
    Dillon MT; Canfarotta MW; Buss E; Hopfinger J; O'Connell BP
    Otol Neurotol; 2021 Jan; 42(1):197-202. PubMed ID: 33885267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Cochlear implant spectral bandwidth for optimizing electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS).
    Gifford RH; Sunderhaus LW; Dawant BM; Labadie RF; Noble JH
    Hear Res; 2022 Dec; 426():108584. PubMed ID: 35985964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of the Configuration of Hearing Loss on Consonant Perception between Simulated Bimodal and Electric Acoustic Stimulation Hearing.
    Yoon YS; Whitaker G; Lee YS
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2021 Sep; 32(8):521-527. PubMed ID: 34965598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears.
    Fu QJ; Galvin JJ; Wang X
    Sci Rep; 2017 Oct; 7(1):12500. PubMed ID: 28970567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Amplitude Growth Functions of Auditory Nerve Responses to Electric Pulse Stimulation With Varied Interphase Gaps in Cochlear Implant Users With Ipsilateral Residual Hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211014137. PubMed ID: 34181493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) in Children: Investigating Benefit Afforded by Bilateral Versus Unilateral Acoustic Hearing.
    Roberts JB; Stecker GC; Holder JT; Gifford RH
    Otol Neurotol; 2021 Aug; 42(7):e836-e843. PubMed ID: 33859136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.