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

131 related items for PubMed ID: 20202276

  • 1. 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; 124(8):828-34. PubMed ID: 20202276
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. 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]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

  • 11. [Speech discrimination in noise for patients with cochlear implants].
    Hamzavi J, Adunka O, Baumgartner WD, Gstoettner W.
    Wien Klin Wochenschr; 2000 Jun 02; 112(11):498-504. PubMed ID: 10890128
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 02; 118(9):1630-6. PubMed ID: 18545213
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.
    McDermott H, Sucher C, Simpson A.
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009 Sep 02; 14 Suppl 1():2-7. PubMed ID: 19390169
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 17. Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
    Galvin KL, Mok M, Dowell RC.
    Ear Hear; 2007 Aug 02; 28(4):470-82. PubMed ID: 17609610
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Place dependent stimulation rates improve pitch perception in cochlear implantees with single-sided deafness.
    Rader T, Döge J, Adel Y, Weissgerber T, Baumann U.
    Hear Res; 2016 Sep 02; 339():94-103. PubMed ID: 27374479
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 7.