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 *

48 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9391624)

  • 1. Single electrode maps in device troubleshooting.
    Hodges AV; Balkany TJ; Schloffman JJ
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S115. PubMed ID: 9391624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Electrode and device problems: manifestation and management.
    Twomey T; Archbold S
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S99-100. PubMed ID: 9391617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The effect of frequency allocation on phoneme recognition with the nucleus 22 cochlear implant.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Slattery WH
    Am J Otol; 1999 Nov; 20(6):729-34. PubMed ID: 10565716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Revision cochlear implantation surgery in adults: indications and results.
    Rivas A; Marlowe AL; Chinnici JE; Niparko JK; Francis HW
    Otol Neurotol; 2008 Aug; 29(5):639-48. PubMed ID: 18665030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Otosclerosis: selection of ear for cochlear implantation.
    Matterson AG; O'Leary S; Pinder D; Freidman L; Dowell R; Briggs R
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Jun; 28(4):438-46. PubMed ID: 17468676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Audiologic outcomes with the penetrating electrode auditory brainstem implant.
    Otto SR; Shannon RV; Wilkinson EP; Hitselberger WE; McCreery DB; Moore JK; Brackmann DE
    Otol Neurotol; 2008 Dec; 29(8):1147-54. PubMed ID: 18931643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of cochlear implant electrode deactivation on speech perception and in predicting device failure.
    Zeitler DM; Lalwani AK; Roland JT; Habib MG; Gudis D; Waltzman SB
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Jan; 30(1):7-13. PubMed ID: 18833018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [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]  

  • 10. Silicone allergy: A new cause for cochlear implant extrusion and its management.
    Kunda LD; Stidham KR; Inserra MM; Roland PS; Franklin D; Roberson JB
    Otol Neurotol; 2006 Dec; 27(8):1078-82. PubMed ID: 17130797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The advanced Combi 40+ cochlear implant.
    Zierhofer CM; Hochmair IJ; Hochmair ES
    Am J Otol; 1997 Nov; 18(6 Suppl):S37-8. PubMed ID: 9391589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Electrode interaction in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of straight and contour electrode arrays.
    Xi X; Ji F; Han D; Hong M; Chen A
    ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2009; 71(4):228-37. PubMed ID: 19707042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using current steering to increase spectral resolution in CII and HiRes 90K users.
    Koch DB; Downing M; Osberger MJ; Litvak L
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):38S-41S. PubMed ID: 17496643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A longitudinal study of electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance in children using the Clarion cochlear implant.
    Henkin Y; Kaplan-Neeman R; Kronenberg J; Migirov L; Hildesheimer M; Muchnik C
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 126(6):581-6. PubMed ID: 16720441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients.
    Saoji AA; Litvak LM; Hughes ML
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):559-67. PubMed ID: 19617837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cochlear reimplantation: surgical techniques and functional results.
    Alexiades G; Roland JT; Fishman AJ; Shapiro W; Waltzman SB; Cohen NL
    Laryngoscope; 2001 Sep; 111(9):1608-13. PubMed ID: 11568614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Standard cochlear implantation of adults with residual low-frequency hearing: implications for combined electro-acoustic stimulation.
    Novak MA; Black JM; Koch DB
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):609-14. PubMed ID: 17514064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.