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 *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39215517)

  • 21. Suitability of the Binaural Interaction Component for Interaural Electrode Pairing of Bilateral Cochlear Implants.
    Hu H; Kollmeier B; Dietz M
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2016; 894():57-64. PubMed ID: 27080646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Reweighting of Binaural Localization Cues in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
    Klingel M; Laback B
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2022 Feb; 23(1):119-136. PubMed ID: 34812980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Spatial and non-spatial multisensory cueing in unilateral cochlear implant users.
    Pavani F; Venturini M; Baruffaldi F; Artesini L; Bonfioli F; Frau GN; van Zoest W
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():24-37. PubMed ID: 27810286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Rate discrimination at low pulse rates in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners: Influence of intracochlear stimulation site.
    Stahl P; Macherey O; Meunier S; Roman S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Apr; 139(4):1578. PubMed ID: 27106306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Binaural timing information in electric hearing at low rates: Effects of inaccurate encoding and loudness.
    Egger K; Majdak P; Laback B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):3164. PubMed ID: 28599571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on the salience of binaural cues in conditions that simulate bilateral cochlear-implant listening.
    Goupell MJ; Stoelb C; Kan A; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2272-87. PubMed ID: 23556595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users.
    Nelson DA; Kreft HA; Anderson ES; Donaldson GS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3916-33. PubMed ID: 21682414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effects of pulse shape on pitch sensitivity of cochlear implant users.
    Arslan NO; Luo X
    Hear Res; 2024 Sep; 450():109075. PubMed ID: 38986164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Binaural hearing in children using Gaussian enveloped and transposed tones.
    Ehlers E; Kan A; Winn MB; Stoelb C; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Apr; 139(4):1724. PubMed ID: 27106319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Neural Processing of Acoustic and Electric Interaural Time Differences in Normal-Hearing Gerbils.
    Vollmer M
    J Neurosci; 2018 Aug; 38(31):6949-6966. PubMed ID: 29959238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Internalized elevation perception of simple stimuli in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.
    Thakkar T; Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):841-52. PubMed ID: 25096117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Limitations on Monaural and Binaural Temporal Processing in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Ihlefeld A; Carlyon RP; Kan A; Churchill TH; Litovsky RY
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Oct; 16(5):641-52. PubMed ID: 26105749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The effect of tone-vocoding on spatial release from masking for old, hearing-impaired listeners.
    King A; Hopkins K; Plack CJ; Pontoppidan NH; Bramsløw L; Hietkamp RK; Vatti M; Hafez A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2591. PubMed ID: 28464637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.
    Boëx C; Baud L; Cosendai G; Sigrist A; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 7(2):110-24. PubMed ID: 16450213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants.
    van Hoesel RJ; Tyler RS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Mar; 113(3):1617-30. PubMed ID: 12656396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.