167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38092067)
41. 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]
42. The influence of different speech processor and hearing aid settings on speech perception outcomes in electric acoustic stimulation patients.
Vermeire K; Anderson I; Flynn M; Van de Heyning P
Ear Hear; 2008 Jan; 29(1):76-86. PubMed ID: 18091097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Outcomes and Predictive Factors of Electroacoustic Stimulation Rehabilitation in Children With Limited Low-Frequency Hearing.
Nam GS; Song MH; Choi JY; Jung J
Otol Neurotol; 2019 Oct; 40(9):e894-e900. PubMed ID: 31498289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Hearing Asymmetry Biases Spatial Hearing in Bimodal Cochlear-Implant Users Despite Bilateral Low-Frequency Hearing Preservation.
Sharma S; H M Mens L; F M Snik A; van Opstal AJ; van Wanrooij MM
Trends Hear; 2023; 27():23312165221143907. PubMed ID: 36605011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. [Short-term observation of electrical acoustic stimulation in patients with low frequency residual hearing after cochlear implant].
Wang RJ; Luo JF; Chao XH; Hu FX; Fan ZM; Xu L; Wang HB
Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2023 Dec; 58(12):1173-1182. PubMed ID: 38186091
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. Incidence of Cochlear Implant Electrode Contacts in the Functional Acoustic Hearing Region and the Influence on Speech Recognition with Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
Nix EP; Thompson NJ; Brown KD; Dedmon MM; Selleck AM; Overton AB; Canfarotta MW; Dillon MT
Otol Neurotol; 2023 Dec; 44(10):1004-1010. PubMed ID: 37758328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Sensitivity to interaural time differences and localization accuracy in cochlear implant users with combined electric-acoustic stimulation.
Körtje M; Baumann U; Stöver T; Weissgerber T
PLoS One; 2020; 15(10):e0241015. PubMed ID: 33075114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. The Effects of Acoustic Bandwidth on Simulated Bimodal Benefit in Children and Adults with Normal Hearing.
Sheffield SW; Simha M; Jahn KN; Gifford RH
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):282-8. PubMed ID: 26901264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Long-term residual hearing in cochlear implanted adult patients who were candidates for electro-acoustic stimulation.
Mamelle E; Granger B; Sterkers O; Lahlou G; Ferrary E; Nguyen Y; Mosnier I
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2020 Mar; 277(3):705-713. PubMed ID: 31802226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Mandarin speech perception in combined electric and acoustic stimulation.
Li Y; Zhang G; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
PLoS One; 2014; 9(11):e112471. PubMed ID: 25386962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Reducing Simulated Channel Interaction Reveals Differences in Phoneme Identification Between Children and Adults With Normal Hearing.
Jahn KN; DiNino M; Arenberg JG
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(2):295-311. PubMed ID: 29927780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Objective measure of binaural processing: Acoustic change complex in response to interaural phase differences.
Fan Y; Gifford RH
Hear Res; 2024 Jul; 448():109020. PubMed ID: 38763034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. Effect of carrier bandwidth on integration of simulations of acoustic and electric hearing within or across ears.
Fu QJ; Galvin JJ; Wang X
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Dec; 142(6):EL561. PubMed ID: 29289073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Speech perception in noise: Impact of directional microphones in users of combined electric-acoustic stimulation.
Weissgerber T; Stöver T; Baumann U
PLoS One; 2019; 14(3):e0213251. PubMed ID: 30840668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Slim Modiolar Electrode Placement in Candidates for Electroacoustic Stimulation.
Kay-Rivest E; Winchester A; McMenomey SO; Jethanamest D; Roland JT; Friedmann DR
Ear Hear; 2023 May-Jun 01; 44(3):566-571. PubMed ID: 36534657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Influence of Test Condition on Speech Perception With Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
Dillon MT; Buss E; Adunka OF; Buchman CA; Pillsbury HC
Am J Audiol; 2015 Dec; 24(4):520-8. PubMed ID: 26650652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Electro-Tactile Stimulation Enhances Cochlear Implant Speech Recognition in Noise.
Huang J; Sheffield B; Lin P; Zeng FG
Sci Rep; 2017 May; 7(1):2196. PubMed ID: 28526871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Objective discrimination of bimodal speech using frequency following responses.
Xu C; Cheng FY; Medina S; Eng E; Gifford R; Smith S
Hear Res; 2023 Sep; 437():108853. PubMed ID: 37441879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
