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

314 related items for PubMed ID: 22143301

  • 1. Speech recognition and communication outcomes with cochlear implantation in Usher syndrome type 3.
    Pietola L, Aarnisalo AA, Abdel-Rahman A, Västinsalo H, Isosomppi J, Löppönen H, Kentala E, Johansson R, Valtonen H, Vasama JP, Sankila EM, Jero J.
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jan; 33(1):38-41. PubMed ID: 22143301
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. [Usher type I syndrome in children: genotype/phenotype correlation and cochlear implant benefits].
    Blanchet C, Roux AF, Hamel C, Ben Salah S, Artières F, Faugère V, Uziel A, Mondain M.
    Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord); 2007 Jan; 128(3):137-43. PubMed ID: 18323324
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. Cochlear implant outcomes in adults and adolescents with early-onset hearing loss.
    Caposecco A, Hickson L, Pedley K.
    Ear Hear; 2012 Oct; 33(2):209-20. PubMed ID: 21934504
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Quality of life and cochlear implantation in Usher syndrome type I.
    Damen GW, Pennings RJ, Snik AF, Mylanus EA.
    Laryngoscope; 2006 May; 116(5):723-8. PubMed ID: 16652078
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Results with cochlear implantation in adults with speech recognition scores exceeding current criteria.
    Amoodi HA, Mick PT, Shipp DB, Friesen LM, Nedzelski JM, Chen JM, Lin VY.
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jan; 33(1):6-12. PubMed ID: 22090001
    [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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
    Morera C, Manrique M, Ramos A, Garcia-Ibanez L, Cavalle L, Huarte A, Castillo C, Estrada E.
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Long-Term Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in Usher Syndrome.
    Fehrmann MLA, Lanting CP, Haer-Wigman L, Yntema HG, Mylanus EAM, Huinck WJ, Pennings RJE.
    Ear Hear; 2005 Jun; 45(6):1542-1553. PubMed ID: 38987893
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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]

  • 12. Usher syndrome: characteristics and outcomes of pediatric cochlear implant recipients.
    Jatana KR, Thomas D, Weber L, Mets MB, Silverman JB, Young NM.
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Apr; 34(3):484-9. PubMed ID: 23442567
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Multicenter study with a direct acoustic cochlear implant.
    Lenarz T, Zwartenkot JW, Stieger C, Schwab B, Mylanus EA, Caversaccio M, Kompis M, Snik AF, D'hondt C, Mojallal H.
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Sep; 34(7):1215-25. PubMed ID: 23921930
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Cochlear implantation in individuals with Usher type 1 syndrome.
    Liu XZ, Angeli SI, Rajput K, Yan D, Hodges AV, Eshraghi A, Telischi FF, Balkany TJ.
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2008 Jun; 72(6):841-7. PubMed ID: 18395802
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Audiological application criteria for implantable hearing aid devices: a clinical experience at the Nijmegen ORL clinic.
    Verhaegen VJ, Mylanus EA, Cremers CW, Snik AF.
    Laryngoscope; 2008 Sep; 118(9):1645-9. PubMed ID: 18677283
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Implication of central asymmetry in speech processing on selecting the ear for cochlear implantation.
    Morris LG, Mallur PS, Roland JT, Waltzman SB, Lalwani AK.
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Jan; 28(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 17195742
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Bilateral cochlear implantation for hearing-impaired children: criterion of candidacy derived from an observational study.
    Lovett RE, Vickers DA, Summerfield AQ.
    Ear Hear; 2015 Jan; 36(1):14-23. PubMed ID: 25170781
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 and bilateral vestibular schwannoma.
    Lustig LR, Yeagle J, Driscoll CL, Blevins N, Francis H, Niparko JK.
    Otol Neurotol; 2006 Jun; 27(4):512-8. PubMed ID: 16791043
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Favorable outcome of cochlear implant in VIIIth nerve deficiency.
    Zanetti D, Guida M, Barezzani MG, Campovecchi C, Nassif N, Pinelli L, Giordano L, Olioso G.
    Otol Neurotol; 2006 Sep; 27(6):815-23. PubMed ID: 16936567
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Cochlear implantation in patients with substantial residual hearing.
    Cullen RD, Higgins C, Buss E, Clark M, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA.
    Laryngoscope; 2004 Dec; 114(12):2218-23. PubMed ID: 15564849
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 16.