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

210 related items for PubMed ID: 29195445

  • 1. Cochlear implant simulator with independent representation of the full spiral ganglion.
    Grange JA, Culling JF, Harris NSL, Bergfeld S.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):EL484. PubMed ID: 29195445
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L, Hohmann V, Büchner A, Schädler MR, Jürgens T.
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB, Riss D, Liepins R, Rader T, Keck T, Keintzel T, Kaider A, Baumgartner WD, Gstoettner W, Arnoldner C.
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users.
    Zhou N.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):EL243. PubMed ID: 28372106
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. Bimodal benefits in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users with contralateral residual acoustic hearing.
    Yang HI, Zeng FG.
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(sup2):S17-S22. PubMed ID: 28485635
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility.
    Croghan NBH, Duran SI, Smith ZM.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Dec; 142(6):EL537. PubMed ID: 29289062
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Long-term Average Speech Spectra of Postlingual Cochlear Implant Users.
    Yüksel M, Gündüz B.
    J Voice; 2019 Mar; 33(2):255.e19-255.e25. PubMed ID: 29329722
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Yoon YS, Li Y, Kang HY, Fu QJ.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Aug; 50(8):554-65. PubMed ID: 21696329
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Factors influencing speech perception in noise for 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants.
    Ching TY, Zhang VW, Flynn C, Burns L, Button L, Hou S, McGhie K, Van Buynder P.
    Int J Audiol; 2018 May; 57(sup2):S70-S80. PubMed ID: 28687057
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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]

  • 12. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.
    Dorman MF, Cook S, Spahr A, Zhang T, Loiselle L, Schramm D, Whittingham J, Gifford R.
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():107-11. PubMed ID: 25285624
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Utility of bilateral acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant.
    Plant K, Babic L.
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Apr; 55 Suppl 2():S31-8. PubMed ID: 26987051
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Validation of list equivalency for Mandarin speech materials to use with cochlear implant listeners.
    Li Y, Wang S, Su Q, Galvin JJ, Fu QJ.
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Apr; 56(sup2):S31-S40. PubMed ID: 27414242
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Prediction of cochlear implant performance by genetic mutation: the spiral ganglion hypothesis.
    Eppsteiner RW, Shearer AE, Hildebrand MS, Deluca AP, Ji H, Dunn CC, Black-Ziegelbein EA, Casavant TL, Braun TA, Scheetz TE, Scherer SE, Hansen MR, Gantz BJ, Smith RJ.
    Hear Res; 2012 Oct; 292(1-2):51-8. PubMed ID: 22975204
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Speech rate, rate-matching, and intelligibility in early-implanted cochlear implant users.
    Freeman V, Pisoni DB.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Aug; 142(2):1043. PubMed ID: 28863583
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
    Marcrum SC, Picou EM, Steffens T.
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Information theoretic evaluation of a noiseband-based cochlear implant simulator.
    Aguiar DE, Taylor NE, Li J, Gazanfari DK, Talavage TM, Laflen JB, Neuberger H, Svirsky MA.
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():185-193. PubMed ID: 26409068
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Electroacoustic Stimulation.
    Li C, Kuhlmey M, Kim AH.
    Otolaryngol Clin North Am; 2019 Apr; 52(2):311-322. PubMed ID: 30617011
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant listeners via single electrode stimulation in relation to speech perception.
    Liebscher T, Alberter K, Hoppe U.
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Dec; 57(12):933-940. PubMed ID: 30295156
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.