167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38092067)
61. [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]
62. Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing.
Fowler JR; Eggleston JL; Reavis KM; McMillan GP; Reiss LA
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2016 Feb; 59(1):99-109. PubMed ID: 26535803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Long-term follow-up of hearing preservation in electric-acoustic stimulation patients.
Mertens G; Punte AK; Cochet E; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
Otol Neurotol; 2014 Dec; 35(10):1765-72. PubMed ID: 25133472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. A Computational Model of a Single Auditory Nerve Fiber for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
Kipping D; Nogueira W
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2022 Dec; 23(6):835-858. PubMed ID: 36333573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. Acceptance and Benefit of Electroacoustic Stimulation in Children.
Spitzer ER; Kay-Rivest E; Waltzman SB; O'Brien-Russo CA; Santacatterina M; Roland JT; Landsberger DM; Friedmann DR
Otol Neurotol; 2023 Jun; 44(5):453-461. PubMed ID: 37167445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. 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]
67. Assessment of the subjective benefit of electric acoustic stimulation with the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit.
Gstoettner WK; Van de Heyning P; O'Connor AF; Kiefer J; Morera C; Sainz M; Vermeire K; McDonald S; Cavallé L; Valdecasas JG; Adunka OF; Baumann U; Kleine-Punte A; Brockmeier H; Anderson I; Helbig S
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2011; 73(6):321-9. PubMed ID: 21997337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Multicenter US Clinical Trial With an Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) System in Adults: Final Outcomes.
Pillsbury HC; Dillon MT; Buchman CA; Staecker H; Prentiss SM; Ruckenstein MJ; Bigelow DC; Telischi FF; Martinez DM; Runge CL; Friedland DR; Blevins NH; Larky JB; Alexiades G; Kaylie DM; Roland PS; Miyamoto RT; Backous DD; Warren FM; El-Kashlan HK; Slager HK; Reyes C; Racey AI; Adunka OF
Otol Neurotol; 2018 Mar; 39(3):299-305. PubMed ID: 29342054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. 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]
70. Long-term Hearing Preservation Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.
Helbig S; Adel Y; Rader T; Stöver T; Baumann U
Otol Neurotol; 2016 Oct; 37(9):e353-9. PubMed ID: 27631659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. [Simulation of speech perception with cochlear implants : Influence of frequency and level of fundamental frequency components with electronic acoustic stimulation].
Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
HNO; 2017 Mar; 65(3):237-242. PubMed ID: 27670421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. 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]
73. 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]
74. Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing.
Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():185-196. PubMed ID: 28688755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. Frequency overlap between electric and acoustic stimulation and speech-perception benefit in patients with combined electric and acoustic stimulation.
Zhang T; Spahr AJ; Dorman MF
Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):195-201. PubMed ID: 19915474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. Assessing the Quality of Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing: Implications for Combined Electroacoustic Stimulation With Cochlear Implants.
Spitzer ER; Landsberger DM; Friedmann DR
Ear Hear; 2021; 42(2):475-486. PubMed ID: 32976249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: a review of the first decade.
von Ilberg CA; Baumann U; Kiefer J; Tillein J; Adunka OF
Audiol Neurootol; 2011; 16 Suppl 2():1-30. PubMed ID: 21606646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Benefits to Speech Perception in Noise From the Binaural Integration of Electric and Acoustic Signals in Simulated Unilateral Deafness.
Ma N; Morris S; Kitterick PT
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):248-59. PubMed ID: 27116049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. 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]
80. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
