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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9391593)

  • 1. Evaluation of noise reduction systems for cochlear implant users in different acoustic environment.
    Hamacher V; Doering WH; Mauer G; Fleischmann H; Hennecke J
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S46-9. PubMed ID: 9391593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System.
    Spriet A; Van Deun L; Eftaxiadis K; Laneau J; Moonen M; van Dijk B; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):62-72. PubMed ID: 17204899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Performance of the new Clarion speech processor 1.2 in quiet and in noise.
    Battmer RD; Feldmeier I; Kohlenberg A; Lenarz T
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S144-6. PubMed ID: 9391637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Speech perception in individuals with auditory neuropathy.
    Zeng FG; Liu S
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):367-80. PubMed ID: 16671850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Use of S-shaped input-output functions for noise suppression in cochlear implants.
    Kasturi K; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):402-11. PubMed ID: 17485989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants.
    Dorman MF; Loizou PC
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S113-4. PubMed ID: 9391623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users.
    Hochmair-Desoyer I; Schulz E; Moser L; Schmidt M
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S83. PubMed ID: 9391610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Which sensitivity setting should a child use?
    Müller-Deile J
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S101-3. PubMed ID: 9391618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
    Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
    [TBL] [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. Evaluation of the benefit for cochlear implantees of two assistive directional microphone systems in an artificial diffuse noise situation.
    van der Beek FB; Soede W; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):99-110. PubMed ID: 17204902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Developments in speech processing for cochlear implants.
    Wouters J; Geurts L; Peeters S; Vanden Berghe J; van Wieringen A
    Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg; 1998; 52(2):129-32. PubMed ID: 9651613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise.
    Nie K; Stickney G; Zeng FG
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2005 Jan; 52(1):64-73. PubMed ID: 15651565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users.
    Kelly AS; Purdy SC; Thorne PR
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2005 Jun; 116(6):1235-46. PubMed ID: 15978485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 1-year postactivation results for sequentially implanted bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Wolfe J; Baker S; Caraway T; Kasulis H; Mears A; Smith J; Swim L; Wood M
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):589-96. PubMed ID: 17667768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
    Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Application of adaptive digital signal processing to speech enhancement for the hearing impaired.
    Chabries DM; Christiansen RW; Brey RH; Robinette MS; Harris RW
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):65-74. PubMed ID: 3430391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Impact of early cochlear implantation on the linguistic development of the deaf child.
    Artières F; Vieu A; Mondain M; Uziel A; Venail F
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Sep; 30(6):736-42. PubMed ID: 19638938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.