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

493 related items for PubMed ID: 24252455

  • 1. 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]

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

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. Effects of envelope bandwidth on importance functions for cochlear implant simulations.
    Whitmal NA, DeMaio D, Lin R.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):733-44. PubMed ID: 25698008
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. Investigating interaural frequency-place mismatches via bimodal vowel integration.
    Guérit F, Santurette S, Chalupper J, Dau T.
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov 23; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421087
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A, Sly D, Cowan R, van Hoesel R.
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug 23; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M, Büchner A, Lenarz T, Nogueira W.
    Hear Res; 2020 Feb 23; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing.
    Krüger B, Büchner A, Nogueira W.
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep 23; 353():185-196. PubMed ID: 28688755
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.
    Dorman MF, Spahr T, Gifford R, Loiselle L, McKarns S, Holden T, Skinner M, Finley C.
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2007 Jun 23; 8(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 17351713
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Neural tonotopy in cochlear implants: an evaluation in unilateral cochlear implant patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus.
    Vermeire K, Nobbe A, Schleich P, Nopp P, Voormolen MH, Van de Heyning PH.
    Hear Res; 2008 Nov 23; 245(1-2):98-106. PubMed ID: 18817861
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Electric and acoustic harmonic integration predicts speech-in-noise performance in hybrid cochlear implant users.
    Bonnard D, Schwalje A, Gantz B, Choi I.
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep 23; 367():223-230. PubMed ID: 29980380
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Deep electrode insertion and sound coding in cochlear implants.
    Hochmair I, Hochmair E, Nopp P, Waller M, Jolly C.
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr 23; 322():14-23. PubMed ID: 25456089
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Rate discrimination at low pulse rates in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners: Influence of intracochlear stimulation site.
    Stahl P, Macherey O, Meunier S, Roman S.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Apr 23; 139(4):1578. PubMed ID: 27106306
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. New parallel stimulation strategies revisited: effect of synchronous multi electrode stimulation on rate discrimination in cochlear implant users.
    Bahmer A, Baumann U.
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2013 Jun 23; 14(3):142-9. PubMed ID: 22733121
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. The Relationship Between Insertion Angles, Default Frequency Allocations, and Spiral Ganglion Place Pitch in Cochlear Implants.
    Landsberger DM, Svrakic M, Roland JT, Svirsky M.
    Ear Hear; 2015 Jun 23; 36(5):e207-13. PubMed ID: 25860624
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Cochlear Implant Rate Pitch and Melody Perception as a Function of Place and Number of Electrodes.
    Marimuthu V, Swanson BA, Mannell R.
    Trends Hear; 2016 Apr 19; 20():. PubMed ID: 27094028
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Characterizing the relationship between modulation sensitivity and pitch resolution in cochlear implant users.
    Camarena A, Goldsworthy RL.
    Hear Res; 2024 Jul 19; 448():109026. PubMed ID: 38776706
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear-Implant Users: Channel Independence in Apical Cochlear Regions.
    Griessner A, Schatzer R, Steixner V, Rajan GP, Zierhofer C, Távora-Vieira D.
    Trends Hear; 2021 Jul 19; 25():23312165211020645. PubMed ID: 34041983
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 25.