171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38092067)
21. Frequency-to-Place Mismatch: Characterizing Variability and the Influence on Speech Perception Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients.
Canfarotta MW; Dillon MT; Buss E; Pillsbury HC; Brown KD; O'Connell BP
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1349-1361. PubMed ID: 32205726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Binaural Optimization of Cochlear Implants: Discarding Frequency Content Without Sacrificing Head-Shadow Benefit.
Sheffield SW; Goupell MJ; Spencer NJ; Stakhovskaya OA; Bernstein JGW
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(3):576-590. PubMed ID: 31436754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.
Sheffield SW; Gifford RH
Audiol Neurootol; 2014; 19(3):151-63. PubMed ID: 24556850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Shifting Fundamental Frequency in Simulated Electric-Acoustic Listening: Effects of F0 Variation.
Brown CA; Helms Tillery K; Apoux F; Doyle NM; Bacon SP
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(1):e18-25. PubMed ID: 26565786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Acceptance and fitting of the DUET device - a combined speech processor for electric acoustic stimulation.
Helbig S; Baumann U
Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 2010; 67():81-87. PubMed ID: 19955724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The relative phonetic contributions of a cochlear implant and residual acoustic hearing to bimodal speech perception.
Sheffield BM; Zeng FG
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jan; 131(1):518-30. PubMed ID: 22280613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. Trimodal speech perception: how residual acoustic hearing supplements cochlear-implant consonant recognition in the presence of visual cues.
Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JG
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):e99-112. PubMed ID: 25514796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Longitudinal Electrocochleography as an Objective Measure of Serial Behavioral Audiometry in Electro-Acoustic Stimulation Patients.
Tejani VD; Kim JS; Etler CP; Skidmore J; Yuan Y; He S; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
Ear Hear; 2023 Sep-Oct 01; 44(5):1014-1028. PubMed ID: 36790447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS).
Dorman MF; Spahr AJ; Loizou PC; Dana CJ; Schmidt JS
Ear Hear; 2005 Aug; 26(4):371-80. PubMed ID: 16079632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Bimodal benefits in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users with contralateral residual acoustic hearing.
Yang HI; Zeng FG
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S17-S22. PubMed ID: 28485635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Importance of ipsilateral residual hearing for spatial hearing by bimodal cochlear implant users.
Thomas M; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
Sci Rep; 2023 Mar; 13(1):4960. PubMed ID: 36973380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments.
Gifford RH; Dorman MF; Skarzynski H; Lorens A; Polak M; Driscoll CL; Roland P; Buchman CA
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):413-25. PubMed ID: 23446225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Outcomes in Children.
Park LR; Teagle HFB; Gagnon E; Woodard J; Brown KD
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(4):849-857. PubMed ID: 30252685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Users.
Dillon MT; Canfarotta MW; Buss E; Rooth MA; Richter ME; Overton AB; Roth NE; Dillon SM; Raymond JH; Young A; Pearson AC; Davis AG; Dedmon MM; Brown KD; O'Connell BP
Am J Audiol; 2023 Mar; 32(1):251-260. PubMed ID: 36800505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
