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 *

98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7789670)

  • 1. Use of test-retest measures to evaluate performance stability in adults with cochlear implants.
    Skinner MW; Holden LK; Demorest ME; Holden TA
    Ear Hear; 1995 Apr; 16(2):187-97. PubMed ID: 7789670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.
    Firszt JB; Holden LK; Skinner MW; Tobey EA; Peterson A; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Wackym PA
    Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):375-87. PubMed ID: 15292777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.
    Bierer JA; Nye AD
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):641-51. PubMed ID: 25036146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy.
    Holden LK; Skinner MW; Holden TA; Demorest ME
    Ear Hear; 2002 Oct; 23(5):463-76. PubMed ID: 12411779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants.
    Skinner MW; Holden LK; Holden TA; Demorest ME; Fourakis MS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Jun; 101(6):3766-82. PubMed ID: 9193063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A method for determining precise electrical hearing thresholds in cochlear implant users.
    Rader T; Doms P; Adel Y; Weissgerber T; Strieth S; Baumann U
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jul; 57(7):502-509. PubMed ID: 29390897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Performance benefits for adults using a cochlear implant with adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a comparative study.
    Müller-Deile J; Kiefer J; Wyss J; Nicolai J; Battmer R
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2008 Mar; 9(1):8-26. PubMed ID: 18300224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dynamic Current Focusing: A Novel Approach to Loudness Coding in Cochlear Implants.
    de Jong MAM; Briaire JJ; Frijns JHM
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):34-44. PubMed ID: 29742542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor.
    Mertens G; Hofkens A; Punte AK; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
    Otol Neurotol; 2015 Jan; 36(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 25406874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral T- and C-levels in children with cochlear implants.
    Holstad BA; Sonneveldt VG; Fears BT; Davidson LS; Aaron RJ; Richter M; Matusofsky M; Brenner CA; Strube MJ; Skinner MW
    Ear Hear; 2009 Feb; 30(1):115-27. PubMed ID: 19125034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects.
    Zwolan TA; Collins LM; Wakefield GH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Dec; 102(6):3673-85. PubMed ID: 9407659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Modulation frequency discrimination with single and multiple channels in cochlear implant users.
    Galvin JJ; Oba S; Başkent D; Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2015 Jun; 324():7-18. PubMed ID: 25746914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant recipients' thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels.
    Skinner MW; Holden LK; Holden TA; Demorest ME
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2000 Apr; 11(4):203-13. PubMed ID: 10783923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing.
    Nelson DA; Van Tasell DJ; Schroder AC; Soli S; Levine S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1995 Oct; 98(4):1987-99. PubMed ID: 7593921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of Threshold Adjustment on Speech Perception in Nucleus Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Busby PA; Arora K
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):303-11. PubMed ID: 26671316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparison of procedures for obtaining thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels with the nucleus cochlear implant system.
    Skinner MW; Holden LK; Holden TA; Demorest ME
    J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Jun; 38(3):677-89. PubMed ID: 7674659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners.
    Donaldson GS; Allen SL
    Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):392-405. PubMed ID: 14534410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.