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

323 related items for PubMed ID: 19390169

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

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

  • 3. Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch.
    Schatzer R, Vermeire K, Visser D, Krenmayr A, Kals M, Voormolen M, Van de Heyning P, Zierhofer C.
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():26-35. PubMed ID: 24252455
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function.
    Baumann U, Nobbe A.
    Hear Res; 2006 Mar; 213(1-2):34-42. PubMed ID: 16442249
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Perceptual dissimilarities among acoustic stimuli and ipsilateral electric stimuli.
    McDermott HJ, Sucher CM.
    Hear Res; 2006 Aug; 218(1-2):81-8. PubMed ID: 16777362
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.
    Boëx C, Baud L, Cosendai G, Sigrist A, Kós MI, Pelizzone M.
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 7(2):110-24. PubMed ID: 16450213
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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]

  • 8. How much residual hearing is 'useful' for music perception with cochlear implants?
    El Fata F, James CJ, Laborde ML, Fraysse B.
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009 Feb; 14 Suppl 1():14-21. PubMed ID: 19390171
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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]

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

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

  • 12. 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]

  • 13. Frequency-place map for electrical stimulation in cochlear implants: Change over time.
    Vermeire K, Landsberger DM, Van de Heyning PH, Voormolen M, Kleine Punte A, Schatzer R, Zierhofer C.
    Hear Res; 2015 Aug; 326():8-14. PubMed ID: 25840373
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation.
    Reiss LA, Turner CW, Karsten SA, Gantz BJ.
    Neuroscience; 2014 Jan 03; 256():43-52. PubMed ID: 24157931
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Electro-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant: Is there a need for adjustment of the default frequency allocation tables?
    Peters JPM, Bennink E, Grolman W, van Zanten GA.
    Hear Res; 2016 Dec 03; 342():124-133. PubMed ID: 27789255
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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 03; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Cochlear implant patients' speech understanding in background noise: effect of mismatch between electrode assigned frequencies and perceived pitch.
    Di Nardo W, Scorpecci A, Giannantonio S, Cianfrone F, Parrilla C, Paludetti G.
    J Laryngol Otol; 2010 Aug 03; 124(8):828-34. PubMed ID: 20202276
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. 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 03; 29(6):853-64. PubMed ID: 18633324
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Experimental assessment of polyphonic tones with cochlear implants.
    Penninger RT, Limb CJ, Vermeire K, Leman M, Dhooge I.
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Sep 03; 34(7):1267-71. PubMed ID: 23921943
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Results of partial deafness cochlear implantation using various electrode designs.
    Skarzyński H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Podskarbi-Fayette R.
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009 Sep 03; 14 Suppl 1():39-45. PubMed ID: 19390174
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 17.