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 *

62 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9391618)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A comparison of the growth of open-set speech perception between the nucleus 22 and nucleus 24 cochlear implant systems.
    Waltzman SB; Cohen NL; Roland JT
    Am J Otol; 1999 Jul; 20(4):435-41. PubMed ID: 10431883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Noise signal reduction in cochlear implant speech processors].
    Müller-Deile J
    HNO; 1995 Sep; 43(9):545-51. PubMed ID: 7591867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Long-term speech perception in children with cochlear implants compared with children with conventional hearing aids.
    Snik AF; Vermeulen AM; Brokx JP; van den Broek P
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S129-30. PubMed ID: 9391631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Comparison of two cochlear implant speech processors in better versus poorer performers.
    Cafarelli Dees D; George C; Stevenson F; Sheridan C; Haacke NP
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():258-60. PubMed ID: 7668660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation.
    Geers AE
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):634-8. PubMed ID: 15148189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. The influence of potentially limiting factors on paediatric outcomes following cochlear implantation.
    Vlahović S; Sindija B
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2004 Sep; 68(9):1167-74. PubMed ID: 15302147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Speech perception in children after cochlear implantation.
    O'Donoghue GM; Nikolopoulos TP; Archbold SM; Tait M
    Am J Otol; 1998 Nov; 19(6):762-7. PubMed ID: 9831151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Hearing results with deep insertion of cochlear implant electrodes.
    Hodges AV; Villasuso E; Balkany T; Bird PA; Butts S; Lee D; Gomez O
    Am J Otol; 1999 Jan; 20(1):53-5. PubMed ID: 9918173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Speech perception results for children with implants with different levels of preoperative residual hearing.
    Cowan RS; DelDot J; Barker EJ; Sarant JZ; Pegg P; Dettman S; Galvin KL; Rance G; Hollow R; Dowell RC; Pyman B; Gibson WP; Clark GM
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S125-6. PubMed ID: 9391629
    [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. 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 4.