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 *

63 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9596181)

  • 1. Performance with the 20 + 2L lateral wall cochlear implant.
    Kileny PR; Zwolan TA; Telian SA; Boerst A
    Am J Otol; 1998 May; 19(3):313-9. PubMed ID: 9596181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Patient performance with the Cochlear Corporation "20 + 2" implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation.
    Zwolan TA; Kileny PR; Ashbaugh C; Telian SA
    Am J Otol; 1996 Sep; 17(5):717-23. PubMed ID: 8892567
    [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. 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. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria.
    Rubinstein JT; Parkinson WS; Tyler RS; Gantz BJ
    Am J Otol; 1999 Jul; 20(4):445-52. PubMed ID: 10431885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The influence of age at implantation on performance with a cochlear implant in children.
    Kileny PR; Zwolan TA; Ashbaugh C
    Otol Neurotol; 2001 Jan; 22(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 11314714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 10. Electrically evoked amplitude modulation following response in cochlear implant candidates: comparison with auditory nerve response telemetry, subjective electrical stimulation, and speech perception.
    Hirschfelder A; Gräbel S; Olze H
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Aug; 33(6):968-75. PubMed ID: 22772009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Spread of excitation and channel interaction in single- and dual-electrode cochlear implant stimulation.
    Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; Vanpoucke FJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):367-76. PubMed ID: 22048258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The contribution of apical stimulation to Mandarin speech perception in users of the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
    Qi B; Liu B; Krenmayr A; Liu S; Gong S; Liu H; Zhang N; Han D
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2011 Jan; 131(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 20863152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study.
    Wolfe J; Parkinson A; Schafer EC; Gilden J; Rehwinkel K; Mansanares J; Coughlan E; Wright J; Torres J; Gannaway S
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jun; 33(4):553-60. PubMed ID: 22588233
    [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. 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]  

  • 16. The role of hearing preservation on electrical thresholds and speech performances in cochlear implantation.
    D'Elia A; Bartoli R; Giagnotti F; Quaranta N
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Apr; 33(3):343-7. PubMed ID: 22388729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Modiolar coiling, electrical thresholds, and speech perception after cochlear implantation using the nucleus contour advance electrode with the advance off stylet technique.
    Huang TC; Reitzen SD; Marrinan MS; Waltzman SB; Roland JT
    Otol Neurotol; 2006 Feb; 27(2):159-66. PubMed ID: 16436984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The effects of residual hearing in traditional cochlear implant candidates after implantation with a conventional electrode.
    Cosetti MK; Friedmann DR; Zhu BZ; Heman-Ackah SE; Fang Y; Keller RG; Shapiro WH; Roland JT; Waltzman SB
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Apr; 34(3):516-21. PubMed ID: 23449440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of cytomegalovirus (CMV) related deafness on pediatric cochlear implant outcomes.
    Lee DJ; Lustig L; Sampson M; Chinnici J; Niparko JK
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2005 Dec; 133(6):900-5. PubMed ID: 16360511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.