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 *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9391610)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. [Speech discrimination in noise for patients with cochlear implants].
    Hamzavi J; Adunka O; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W
    Wien Klin Wochenschr; 2000 Jun; 112(11):498-504. PubMed ID: 10890128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Companding to improve cochlear-implant speech recognition in speech-shaped noise.
    Bhattacharya A; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1079-89. PubMed ID: 17672655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Outcomes of treatment of partial deafness with cochlear implantation: a DUET study.
    Lorens A; Polak M; Piotrowska A; Skarzynski H
    Laryngoscope; 2008 Feb; 118(2):288-94. PubMed ID: 18000465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Effect of technological advances on cochlear implant performance in adults.
    Lenarz M; Joseph G; Sönmez H; Büchner A; Lenarz T
    Laryngoscope; 2011 Dec; 121(12):2634-40. PubMed ID: 22109764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+.
    Brill SM; Gstöttner W; Helms J; von Ilberg C; Baumgartner W; Müller J; Kiefer J
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S104-6. PubMed ID: 9391619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. BKB-SIN and ANL predict perceived communication ability in cochlear implant users.
    Donaldson GS; Chisolm TH; Blasco GP; Shinnick LJ; Ketter KJ; Krause JC
    Ear Hear; 2009 Aug; 30(4):401-10. PubMed ID: 19390441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.
    Gifford RH; Shallop JK; Peterson AM
    Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(3):193-205. PubMed ID: 18212519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception.
    Nie K; Barco A; Zeng FG
    Ear Hear; 2006 Apr; 27(2):208-17. PubMed ID: 16518146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
    Boyd PJ
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.
    Mok M; Grayden D; Dowell RC; Lawrence D
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):338-51. PubMed ID: 16671848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.