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 *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3762284)

  • 1. Long-term effects of multichannel cochlear implant usage.
    Waltzman SB; Cohen NL; Shapiro WH
    Laryngoscope; 1986 Oct; 96(10):1083-7. PubMed ID: 3762284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The role of hearing preservation on electrical thresholds and speech performances in cochlear implantation.
    D'Elia A; Bartoli R; Giagnotti F; Quaranta N
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Apr; 33(3):343-7. PubMed ID: 22388729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of chronic electrical stimulation on patients using a cochlear prosthesis.
    Waltzman SB; Cohen NL; Shapiro WH
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 1991 Dec; 105(6):797-801. PubMed ID: 1787969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids.
    Davidson LS
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):493-507. PubMed ID: 16957500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of preoperative electrical stimulability and historical factors on performance with multichannel cochlear implant.
    Kileny PR; Zimmerman-Phillips S; Kemink JL; Schmaltz SP
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 1991 Jul; 100(7):563-8. PubMed ID: 2064268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pure-Tone Masking Patterns for Monopolar and Phantom Electrical Stimulation in Cochlear Implants.
    Saoji AA; Koka K; Litvak LM; Finley CC
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):124-130. PubMed ID: 28700446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Auditory Performance and Electrical Stimulation Measures in Cochlear Implant Recipients With Auditory Neuropathy Compared With Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
    Attias J; Greenstein T; Peled M; Ulanovski D; Wohlgelernter J; Raveh E
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(2):184-193. PubMed ID: 28225734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of residual hearing in traditional cochlear implant candidates after implantation with a conventional electrode.
    Cosetti MK; Friedmann DR; Zhu BZ; Heman-Ackah SE; Fang Y; Keller RG; Shapiro WH; Roland JT; Waltzman SB
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Apr; 34(3):516-21. PubMed ID: 23449440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Individual data from the 3M/Vienna extracochlear implant.
    Facer GW; Rose DE; McDonald TJ; King AM; Fabry DA
    Laryngoscope; 1986 Oct; 96(10):1053-7. PubMed ID: 3762279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Influence of non-optimal levels of electrical stimulation in cochlear implantees on hearing benefits.
    Wasowski A; Lorens A; Obrycka A; Walkowiak A; Wozniak A; Skarzynski H; Palko T
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2010 Jun; 11 Suppl 1():485-8. PubMed ID: 21756679
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus.
    Shannon RV; Otto SR
    Hear Res; 1990 Aug; 47(1-2):159-68. PubMed ID: 2228792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.
    Debruyne JA; Francart T; Janssen AM; Douma K; Brokx JP
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):174-185. PubMed ID: 27758152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Audiological results in children with a cochlear implant.
    Thielemeir MA; Tonokawa LL; Petersen B; Eisenberg LS
    Ear Hear; 1985; 6(3 Suppl):27S-35S. PubMed ID: 3839473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Residual hearing in cochlear implant patients.
    Di Nardo W; Cantore I; Melillo P; Cianfrone F; Scorpecci A; Paludetti G
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2007 Aug; 264(8):855-60. PubMed ID: 17333229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Sensory aids in conjunction with cochlear implants.
    Waltzman SB; Cohen NL; Shapiro WH
    Am J Otol; 1992 Jul; 13(4):308-12. PubMed ID: 1415491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Genetic variants in the peripheral auditory system significantly affect adult cochlear implant performance.
    Shearer AE; Eppsteiner RW; Frees K; Tejani V; Sloan-Heggen CM; Brown C; Abbas P; Dunn C; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Smith RJH
    Hear Res; 2017 May; 348():138-142. PubMed ID: 28213135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects.
    Zwolan TA; Collins LM; Wakefield GH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Dec; 102(6):3673-85. PubMed ID: 9407659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cochlear implantation outcome in prelingually deafened young adults. A speech perception study.
    Santarelli R; De Filippi R; Genovese E; Arslan E
    Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(4):257-65. PubMed ID: 18259078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Loss of residual hearing after cochlear implantation.
    Boggess WJ; Baker JE; Balkany TJ
    Laryngoscope; 1989 Oct; 99(10 Pt 1):1002-5. PubMed ID: 2796546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Vowel and consonant recognition with the aid of a multichannel cochlear implant.
    Dorman MF; Dankowski K; McCandless G; Parkin JL; Smith L
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 1991 Aug; 43(3):585-601. PubMed ID: 1775658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.