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 *

220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7968864)

  • 1. Pitch perception in patients with a multi-channel cochlear implant using various pulses width.
    Aronson L; Rosenhouse J; Podoshin L; Rosenhouse G; Zanutto SB
    Med Prog Technol; 1994; 20(1-2):43-51. PubMed ID: 7968864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.
    Stohl JS; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The University of Melbourne--nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant.
    Clark GM; Blamey PJ; Brown AM; Gusby PA; Dowell RC; Franz BK; Pyman BC; Shepherd RK; Tong YC; Webb RL
    Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 1987; 38():V-IX, 1-181. PubMed ID: 3318305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.
    Busby PA; Battmer RD; Pesch J
    Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):853-64. PubMed ID: 18633324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The intensity-pitch relation revisited: monopolar versus bipolar cochlear stimulation.
    Arnoldner C; Riss D; Kaider A; Mair A; Wagenblast J; Baumgartner WD; Gstöttner W; Hamzavi JS
    Laryngoscope; 2008 Sep; 118(9):1630-6. PubMed ID: 18545213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of pulse width, pulse rate and paired electrode stimulation on psychophysical measures of dynamic range and speech recognition in cochlear implants.
    Bonnet RM; Boermans PP; Avenarius OF; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(4):489-96. PubMed ID: 22517184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Music training improves pitch perception in prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants.
    Chen JK; Chuang AY; McMahon C; Hsieh JC; Tung TH; Li LP
    Pediatrics; 2010 Apr; 125(4):e793-800. PubMed ID: 20211951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Place-pitch and vowel-pitch comparisons in cochlear implant patients using the Melbourne-Nucleus cochlear implant.
    Pauka CK
    J Laryngol Otol Suppl; 1989; 19():1-31. PubMed ID: 2693565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Timbre discrimination in cochlear implant users and normal hearing subjects using cross-faded synthetic tones.
    Rahne T; Böhme L; Götze G
    J Neurosci Methods; 2011 Aug; 199(2):290-5. PubMed ID: 21664377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man.
    Eddington DK; Dobelle WH; Brackmann DE; Mladejovsky MG; Parkin JL
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 1978; 87(6 Pt 2):1-39. PubMed ID: 736424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Perceptual fusion of polyphonic pitch in cochlear implant users.
    Donnelly PJ; Guo BZ; Limb CJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):EL128-33. PubMed ID: 19894787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Rate pitch discrimination in cochlear implant users with the use of double pulses and different interpulse intervals.
    Pieper SH; Bahmer A
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2019 Nov; 20(6):312-323. PubMed ID: 31448701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users.
    Looi V; McDermott H; McKay C; Hickson L
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):421-34. PubMed ID: 18344870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Perceptual dissimilarities among acoustic stimuli and ipsilateral electric stimuli.
    McDermott HJ; Sucher CM
    Hear Res; 2006 Aug; 218(1-2):81-8. PubMed ID: 16777362
    [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. Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acoustic-electric stimulation.
    Simpson A; McDermott HJ; Dowell RC; Sucher C; Briggs RJ
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Feb; 48(2):63-73. PubMed ID: 19219690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.