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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

179 related items for PubMed ID: 16180345

  • 1. Investigations on the tonotopy for patients with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid.
    Niewiarowicz M, Stieler O.
    Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord); 2005; 126(2):75-80. PubMed ID: 16180345
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
    Baumann U, Rader T, Helbig S, Bahmer A.
    Ear Hear; 2011 Aug; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.
    McDermott H, Sucher C, Simpson A.
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009 Aug; 14 Suppl 1():2-7. PubMed ID: 19390169
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Impact of low-frequency hearing.
    Büchner A, Schüssler M, Battmer RD, Stöver T, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Lenarz T.
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009 Aug; 14 Suppl 1():8-13. PubMed ID: 19390170
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. [Perception of acoustic speech features with single channel cochlear implants and hearing aids. A comparative analysis].
    Dillier N, Spillmann T.
    HNO; 1988 Aug; 36(8):335-41. PubMed ID: 3170279
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Free field frequency discrimination abilities of cochlear implant users.
    Pretorius LL, Hanekom JJ.
    Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 244(1-2):77-84. PubMed ID: 18692556
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Results of partial deafness cochlear implantation using various electrode designs.
    Skarzyński H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Podskarbi-Fayette R.
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009 Oct; 14 Suppl 1():39-45. PubMed ID: 19390174
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. The influence of different speech processor and hearing aid settings on speech perception outcomes in electric acoustic stimulation patients.
    Vermeire K, Anderson I, Flynn M, Van de Heyning P.
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jan; 29(1):76-86. PubMed ID: 18091097
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.
    Stohl JS, Throckmorton CS, Collins LM.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Differences between electrode-assigned frequencies and cochlear implant recipient pitch perception.
    Nardo WD, Cantore I, Cianfrone F, Melillo P, Fetoni AR, Paludetti G.
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2007 Apr; 127(4):370-7. PubMed ID: 17453456
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.
    Busby PA, Battmer RD, Pesch J.
    Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):853-64. PubMed ID: 18633324
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. The role of intensity upon pitch perception in cochlear implant recipients.
    Arnoldner C, Kaider A, Hamzavi J.
    Laryngoscope; 2006 Oct; 116(10):1760-5. PubMed ID: 17003738
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids.
    Davidson LS.
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):493-507. PubMed ID: 16957500
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover.
    Lenarz T, Stöver T, Buechner A, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Patrick J, Pesch J.
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009 Oct; 14 Suppl 1():22-31. PubMed ID: 19390172
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.