106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12118364)
1. Effects of stimulus level on speech perception with cochlear prostheses.
Franck KH; Xu L; Pfingst BE
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2003 Mar; 4(1):49-59. PubMed ID: 12118364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV
Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):227-35. PubMed ID: 10890731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study.
Mens LH; Berenstein CK
Otol Neurotol; 2005 Sep; 26(5):957-64. PubMed ID: 16151343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV
Ear Hear; 1999 Aug; 20(4):321-31. PubMed ID: 10466568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of electrode configuration and place of stimulation on speech perception with cochlear prostheses.
Pfingst BE; Franck KH; Xu L; Bauer EM; Zwolan TA
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2001 Jun; 2(2):87-103. PubMed ID: 11550528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners.
Donaldson GS; Allen SL
Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):392-405. PubMed ID: 14534410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: coding of stimulus channel and current level.
Middlebrooks JC; Bierer JA
J Neurophysiol; 2002 Jan; 87(1):493-507. PubMed ID: 11784765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of electrode configuration and stimulus level on rate and level discrimination with cochlear implants.
Morris DJ; Pfingst BE
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2000 Nov; 1(3):211-23. PubMed ID: 11545227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of vowel context on the recognition of initial and medial consonants by cochlear implant users.
Donaldson GS; Kreft HA
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):658-77. PubMed ID: 17086077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Current-level discrimination using bipolar and monopolar electrode configurations in cochlear implants.
Drennan WR; Pfingst BE
Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 202(1-2):170-9. PubMed ID: 15811709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Patient performance with the Cochlear Corporation "20 + 2" implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation.
Zwolan TA; Kileny PR; Ashbaugh C; Telian SA
Am J Otol; 1996 Sep; 17(5):717-23. PubMed ID: 8892567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants.
Pfingst BE; Xu L
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Mar; 5(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 14605920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants.
Pfingst BE; Zwolan TA; Holloway LA
Hear Res; 1997 Oct; 112(1-2):247-60. PubMed ID: 9367245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies.
Donaldson GS; Nelson DA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Mar; 107(3):1645-58. PubMed ID: 10738818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effect of frequency allocation on phoneme recognition with the nucleus 22 cochlear implant.
Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Slattery WH
Am J Otol; 1999 Nov; 20(6):729-34. PubMed ID: 10565716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of speech perception performance between Sprint/Esprit 3G and Freedom processors in children implanted with nucleus cochlear implants.
Santarelli R; Magnavita V; De Filippi R; Ventura L; Genovese E; Arslan E
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):304-12. PubMed ID: 19225440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception.
Nie K; Barco A; Zeng FG
Ear Hear; 2006 Apr; 27(2):208-17. PubMed ID: 16518146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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; 118(9):1630-6. PubMed ID: 18545213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor.
Loizou PC; Stickney G; Mishra L; Assmann P
Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):12-9. PubMed ID: 12598809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
Boyd PJ
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
