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

397 related items for PubMed ID: 17182877

  • 21. Benefits from a mobile telephone adapter in Combi40+ cochlear implant users.
    Castro A, Lassaletta L, Bastarrica M, Perez-Mora R, Josefa De Sarria M, Gavilan J.
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2008 Jun; 128(6):661-5. PubMed ID: 18568501
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Visual stimuli can impair auditory processing in cochlear implant users.
    Champoux F, Lepore F, Gagné JP, Théoret H.
    Neuropsychologia; 2009 Jan; 47(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 18824184
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Modeling open-set spoken word recognition in postlingually deafened adults after cochlear implantation: some preliminary results with the neighborhood activation model.
    Meyer TA, Frisch SA, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT, Svirsky MA.
    Otol Neurotol; 2003 Jul; 24(4):612-20. PubMed ID: 12851554
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Clinical results using a multiple-channel cochlear prosthesis.
    Dowell RC, Webb RL, Clark GM.
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1984 Jul; 411():230-6. PubMed ID: 6596847
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Performance of older adult cochlear implant users in Hong Kong.
    Chan V, Tong M, Yue V, Wong T, Leung E, Yuen K, van Hasselt A.
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):52S-55S. PubMed ID: 17496647
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Modeling the effect of channel number and interaction on consonant recognition in a cochlear implant peak-picking strategy.
    Verschuur C.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Mar; 125(3):1723-36. PubMed ID: 19275329
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. Clinical relevance of quality of life outcome in cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults.
    Klop WM, Boermans PP, Ferrier MB, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM, Frijns JH.
    Otol Neurotol; 2008 Aug; 29(5):615-21. PubMed ID: 18451751
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Telephone speech perception by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implantees.
    Horng MJ, Chen HC, Hsu CJ, Fu QJ.
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):66S-69S. PubMed ID: 17496651
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Subjective benefits reported by adult Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant users.
    Kou BS, Shipp DB, Nedzelski JM.
    J Otolaryngol; 1994 Feb; 23(1):8-14. PubMed ID: 8170029
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Electrical dynamic range is only weakly associated with auditory performance and speech recognition in long-term users of cochlear implants.
    Kim SY, Jeon SK, Oh SH, Lee JH, Suh MW, Lee SY, Lim HJ, Park MK.
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2018 Aug; 111():170-173. PubMed ID: 29958604
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing.
    Peng SC, Tomblin JB, Turner CW.
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):336-51. PubMed ID: 18344873
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Auditory late cortical response and speech recognition in Digisonic cochlear implant users.
    Maurer J, Collet L, Pelster H, Truy E, Gallégo S.
    Laryngoscope; 2002 Dec; 112(12):2220-4. PubMed ID: 12461344
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. Comparison of musical activities of cochlear implant users with different speech-coding strategies.
    Brockmeier SJ, Grasmeder M, Passow S, Mawmann D, Vischer M, Jappel A, Baumgartner W, Stark T, Müller J, Brill S, Steffens T, Strutz J, Kiefer J, Baumann U, Arnold W.
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):49S-51S. PubMed ID: 17496646
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in adults with prelingual deafness.
    Klop WM, Briaire JJ, Stiggelbout AM, Frijns JH.
    Laryngoscope; 2007 Nov; 117(11):1982-7. PubMed ID: 17767086
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users.
    Looi V, McDermott H, McKay C, Hickson L.
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):421-34. PubMed ID: 18344870
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Spectral modulation detection and vowel and consonant identifications in cochlear implant listeners.
    Saoji AA, Litvak L, Spahr AJ, Eddins DA.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Sep; 126(3):955-8. PubMed ID: 19739707
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Effects of FM-receiver gain on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants.
    Schafer EC, Wolfe J, Lawless T, Stout B.
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Apr; 48(4):196-203. PubMed ID: 19363720
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. McGurk effects in cochlear-implanted deaf subjects.
    Rouger J, Fraysse B, Deguine O, Barone P.
    Brain Res; 2008 Jan 10; 1188():87-99. PubMed ID: 18062941
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 20.