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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7668661)

  • 41. Communication abilities of children with aided residual hearing: comparison with cochlear implant users.
    Eisenberg LS; Kirk KI; Martinez AS; Ying EA; Miyamoto RT
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):563-9. PubMed ID: 15148177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Late partial recovery from meningitic deafness after cochlear implantation: a case study.
    McCormick B; Gibbin KP; Lutman ME; O'Donoghue GM
    Am J Otol; 1993 Nov; 14(6):610-2. PubMed ID: 8296868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant.
    Dunn CC; Tyler RS; Witt SA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):668-80. PubMed ID: 16197280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Performance of Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant system user before and after defibrillation.
    Busse LA; Maddox HE; Gilden JE
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():78-9. PubMed ID: 7668765
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Map dynamic ranges versus duration of hearing loss in cochlear implantees.
    Shim Y; Kim H; Chang M; Kim C
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():178-80. PubMed ID: 7668625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Prognostic value of round-window psychophysical testing with cochlear-implant candidates.
    Shipp DB; Nedzelski JM
    J Otolaryngol; 1994 Jun; 23(3):172-6. PubMed ID: 8064955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [Taking advantage of residual hearing by a hearing aid or a cochlear implant: a comparative study using the MAC (Minimal Auditory Capabilities) battery of tests].
    Spillmann T; Dillier N
    Ther Umsch; 1987 Feb; 44(2):109-13. PubMed ID: 3576499
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. [Prognostic indications within the scope of the selection of cochlear implant patients].
    Burian K; Klasek O
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1989 Apr; 68(4):221-4. PubMed ID: 2742645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Speech production changes with the use of a multichannel cochlear implant in a postlingually hearing impaired adult.
    Cummings S; Groenewald E; Hugo R; Müller L; van der Linde M
    S Afr J Commun Disord; 1994; 41():3-13. PubMed ID: 8602540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Standard cochlear implantation of adults with residual low-frequency hearing: implications for combined electro-acoustic stimulation.
    Novak MA; Black JM; Koch DB
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):609-14. PubMed ID: 17514064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Are cochlear implants indicated in prelingually deaf adults?
    Manrique N; Huarte A; Molina M; Perez N; Espinosa JM; Cervera-Paz FJ; Miranda I
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():192-4. PubMed ID: 7668632
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Results with the currently used cochlear implant.
    Ito J; Takagi A; Kawano M; Takahashi H; Honjo I
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():298-300. PubMed ID: 7668678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. [The characteristics of hearing perception in light of the problem of rehabilitating patients who have undergone implantation].
    Lantsov AA; Petrov SM; Pudov VI
    Vestn Otorinolaringol; 1998; (4):9-11. PubMed ID: 9752087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Effects of chronic electrical stimulation on patients using a cochlear prosthesis.
    Waltzman SB; Cohen NL; Shapiro WH
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 1991 Dec; 105(6):797-801. PubMed ID: 1787969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Assessment of speech perception in children with cochlear implants and tactile aids: what should the future hold?
    Carney AE
    Am J Otol; 1991; 12 Suppl():201-4. PubMed ID: 2069182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Comparison of benefit from UCH/RNID single-channel extracochlear implant and tactile acoustic monitor.
    Aleksy W
    J Laryngol Otol Suppl; 1989; 18():55-7. PubMed ID: 2607197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Long-term results of cochlear implants in children with residual hearing.
    Gantz BJ; Rubinstein JT; Tyler RS; Teagle HF; Cohen NL; Waltzman SB; Miyamoto RT; Kirk KI
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 2000 Dec; 185():33-6. PubMed ID: 11140995
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Comparison of sensory aids in deaf children.
    Miyamoto RT; Osberger MJ; Robbins AJ; Renshaw J; Myres WA; Kessler K; Pope ML
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1989 Aug; 142():2-7. PubMed ID: 2504097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Physiological and acoustic aspects of improvement of speech reception in nerve and conduction deafness.
    Moroz BS
    Hum Physiol; 1985; 11(2):102-7. PubMed ID: 4086032
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.