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 *

214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36333573)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. [An overview of the studies on combined electric and acoustic stimulation of auditory system].
    Guan T; Zhu Z; Ye D
    Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi; 2009 Oct; 26(5):1146-9. PubMed ID: 19947508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies.
    Dorman MF; Gifford RH; Spahr AJ; McKarns SA
    Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(2):105-12. PubMed ID: 18057874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
    Dillon MT; O'Connell BP; Canfarotta MW; Buss E; Hopfinger J
    Am J Audiol; 2022 Jun; 31(2):322-337. PubMed ID: 35394798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Morphological correlates of hearing loss after cochlear implantation and electro-acoustic stimulation in a hearing-impaired Guinea pig model.
    Reiss LA; Stark G; Nguyen-Huynh AT; Spear KA; Zhang H; Tanaka C; Li H
    Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():163-74. PubMed ID: 26087114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Comparison of Two Place-Based Mapping Procedures on Masked Sentence Recognition as a Function of Electrode Array Angular Insertion Depth and Presence of Acoustic Low-Frequency Information: A Simulation Study.
    Dillon MT; Buss E; Johnson AD; Canfarotta MW; O'Connell BP
    Audiol Neurootol; 2023; 28(6):478-487. PubMed ID: 37482054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. EAS-Combined electric and acoustic stimulation.
    Dhanasingh A; Hochmair I
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2021 Mar; 141(sup1):22-62. PubMed ID: 33818263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. The role of electroneural versus electrophonic stimulation on psychoacoustic electric-acoustic masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing.
    Kipping D; Krüger B; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2020 Sep; 395():108036. PubMed ID: 32736202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Music perception in electric acoustic stimulation users as assessed by the Mu.S.I.C. test.
    Brockmeier SJ; Peterreins M; Lorens A; Vermeire K; Helbig S; Anderson I; Skarzynski H; Van de Heyning P; Gstoettner W; Kiefer J
    Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 2010; 67():70-80. PubMed ID: 19955723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Hearing Preservation Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation Depending on the Angle of Insertion: Indication for Electric or Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
    Helbig S; Adel Y; Leinung M; Stöver T; Baumann U; Weissgerber T
    Otol Neurotol; 2018 Aug; 39(7):834-841. PubMed ID: 29912820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Factors associated with hearing loss in a normal-hearing guinea pig model of Hybrid cochlear implants.
    Tanaka C; Nguyen-Huynh A; Loera K; Stark G; Reiss L
    Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 316():82-93. PubMed ID: 25128626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Is electric acoustic stimulation better than conventional cochlear implantation for speech perception in quiet?
    Adunka OF; Pillsbury HC; Adunka MC; Buchman CA
    Otol Neurotol; 2010 Sep; 31(7):1049-54. PubMed ID: 20351607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Electric-acoustic interaction measurements in cochlear-implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing using electrocochleography.
    Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Jan; 147(1):350. PubMed ID: 32006967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.