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 *

48 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6805395)

  • 1. Psychoelectric measurements and results from cochlear implant patients.
    Helmerich LF; Edgerton BJ
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1982; 91(2 Pt 3):35-40. PubMed ID: 6805395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A multiple-electrode cochlear implant.
    House WF; Edgerton BJ
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1982; 91(2 Pt 3):104-16. PubMed ID: 6805389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of promontory and cochlear implants within a single subject.
    Edgerton BJ; House WF; Doyle KJ
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1982; 91(2 Pt 3):100-3. PubMed ID: 6805388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of perimodiolar placement on speech perception and frequency discrimination by cochlear implant users.
    Fitzgerald MB; Shapiro WH; McDonald PD; Neuburger HS; Ashburn-Reed S; Immerman S; Jethanamest D; Roland JT; Svirsky MA
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2007 Apr; 127(4):378-83. PubMed ID: 17453457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration.
    Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 202(1-2):55-62. PubMed ID: 15811699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Rate discrimination and tone recognition in mandarin-speaking cochlear-implant listeners].
    Wei C; Cao K; Wang Z
    Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi; 1999 Apr; 34(2):84-8. PubMed ID: 12764854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 1. Growth of loudness and ECAP amplitude with current.
    Cohen LT
    Hear Res; 2009 Jan; 247(2):87-99. PubMed ID: 19063956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Discrimination of synthetic vowels by using tactile vocoder and a comparison to that of an eight-channel cochlear implant.
    Ifukube T
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1989 Nov; 36(11):1085-91. PubMed ID: 2530151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Loudness of simple and complex stimuli in electric hearing.
    Zeng FG; Shannon RV
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():235-8. PubMed ID: 7668651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Otopathological findings in a patient with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Johnsson LG; House WF; Linthicum FH
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1982; 91(2 Pt 3):74-89. PubMed ID: 6805402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Factors associated with development of speech perception skills in children implanted by age five.
    Geers A; Brenner C; Davidson L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1 Suppl):24S-35S. PubMed ID: 12612478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparisons between neural response imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII bionic ear users with HiResolution sound processing strategies.
    Han DM; Chen XQ; Zhao XT; Kong Y; Li YX; Liu S; Liu B; Mo LY
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jul; 125(7):732-5. PubMed ID: 16012035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with cochlear implants.
    Fitzpatrick EM; Séguin C; Schramm DR; Armstrong S; Chénier J
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):590-9. PubMed ID: 19561509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Four years of experience with cochlear prostheses.
    Hochmair-Desoyer IJ; Hochmair ES; Burian K; Fischer RE
    Med Prog Technol; 1981; 8(3):107-19. PubMed ID: 6895542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
    Boyd PJ
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech discrimination via cochlear implants with two different digital speech processing strategies: preliminary results for 7 patients.
    Dillier N; Bögli H; Spillmann T
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():145-53. PubMed ID: 8153560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of phase duration and pulse rate on loudness and pitch percepts in the first auditory midbrain implant patients: Comparison to cochlear implant and auditory brainstem implant results.
    Lim HH; Lenarz T; Joseph G; Battmer RD; Patrick JF; Lenarz M
    Neuroscience; 2008 Jun; 154(1):370-80. PubMed ID: 18384971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients.
    Potts LG; Skinner MW; Gotter BD; Strube MJ; Brenner CA
    Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):495-511. PubMed ID: 17609612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.