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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7668697)

  • 1. Within-subject comparison of speech perception benefits with a multiple-channel cochlear implant and a tactile device.
    Sarant JZ; Cowan RS; Blamey PJ; Galvin KL; Clark GM
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():339-41. PubMed ID: 7668697
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Longitudinal comparison of the benefits of cochlear implants and tactile aids in a controlled educational setting.
    Geers AE; Tobey EA
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():328-9. PubMed ID: 7668691
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Speech communication for the deaf: visual, tactile, and cochlear-implant.
    Pickett JM
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1986 Jan; 23(1):95-9. PubMed ID: 2420984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of multichannel tactile aids and multichannel cochlear implants in children with profound hearing impairments.
    Miyamoto RT; Robbins AM; Osberger MJ; Todd SL; Riley AI; Kirk KI
    Am J Otol; 1995 Jan; 16(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 8579182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Advantages and disadvantages expected and realized by pediatric cochlear implant recipients as reported by their parents.
    Kelsay DM; Tyler RS
    Am J Otol; 1996 Nov; 17(6):866-73. PubMed ID: 8915415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Longitudinal speech perception performance of young children with cochlear implants and tactile aids plus hearing aids.
    Eilers RE; Cobo-Lewis AB; Vergara KC; Oller DK
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1997; 47():50-4. PubMed ID: 9428045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Development of an improved single-channel tactile aid to lipreading.
    Summers IR; Cooper PG; Brown BH; Stevens JC
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():463-5. PubMed ID: 7668754
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
    Galvin KL; Mok M; Dowell RC
    Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):470-82. PubMed ID: 17609610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Speech perception with a single-channel cochlear implant: a comparison with a single-channel tactile device.
    Carney AE; Kienle M; Miyamoto RT
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Jun; 33(2):229-37. PubMed ID: 2141660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Auditory implants and tactile aids for the profoundly deaf.
    Pickett JM; McFarland W
    J Speech Hear Res; 1985 Mar; 28(1):134-50. PubMed ID: 3884896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Within-subject comparison of speech perception benefits for congenitally deaf adolescents with an electrotactile speech processor and a cochlear implant.
    Sarant J; Cowan R; Blamey P; Galvin K; Clark G
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1996 Apr; 7(2):63-70. PubMed ID: 8652870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Speech perception in children fitted with Nucleus mini system 22 implants].
    Seeger T; Reid J
    Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord); 1993; 114(5):319-22. PubMed ID: 8059096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Performance of prelingually or postlingually deafened adults who were using a single or multichannel cochlear implant.
    Hinderink JB; Snik AF; Mens LH; Brokx JP; van den Broek P
    Ear Nose Throat J; 1994 Mar; 73(3):180-3. PubMed ID: 8205980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Auditory cortical activation and speech perception in cochlear implant users: effects of implant experience and duration of deafness.
    Green KM; Julyan PJ; Hastings DL; Ramsden RT
    Hear Res; 2005 Jul; 205(1-2):184-92. PubMed ID: 15953527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evidence for association between perception of electrical stimuli and rehabilitation dynamics in users of the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant.
    Tavartkiladze GA; Frolenkov GI; Mironova EV
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():181-4. PubMed ID: 7668627
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.