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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36462377)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Pre- and Postoperative Binaural Unmasking for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):554-567. PubMed ID: 28301390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. The temporal mismatch across listening sides affects cortical auditory evoked responses in normal hearing listeners and cochlear implant users with contralateral acoustic hearing.
    Dolhopiatenko H; Segovia-Martinez M; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2024 Sep; 451():109088. PubMed ID: 39032483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Chronic Electro-Acoustic Stimulation May Interfere With Electric Threshold Recovery After Cochlear Implantation in the Aged Guinea Pig.
    Reiss LAJ; Lawrence MB; Omelchenko IA; He W; Kirk JR
    Ear Hear; 2024 Nov-Dec 01; 45(6):1554-1567. PubMed ID: 38992863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Speech perception with electric-acoustic stimulation : Comparison with bilateral cochlear implant users in different noise conditions].
    Rader T
    HNO; 2015 Feb; 63(2):85-93. PubMed ID: 25515123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Event-related potentials for better speech perception in noise by cochlear implant users.
    Soshi T; Hisanaga S; Kodama N; Kanekama Y; Samejima Y; Yumoto E; Sekiyama K
    Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 316():110-21. PubMed ID: 25158303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Audiological and Demographic Factors that Impact the Precision of Speech Categorization in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Colby S; Seedorff M; McMurray B
    Ear Hear; 2023 May-Jun 01; 44(3):572-587. PubMed ID: 36542839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.
    Gifford RH; Davis TJ; Sunderhaus LW; Menapace C; Buck B; Crosson J; O'Neill L; Beiter A; Segel P
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):539-553. PubMed ID: 28301392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
    Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.