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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14587604)

  • 1. Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems.
    Boëx C; de Balthasar C; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Oct; 114(4 Pt 1):2049-57. PubMed ID: 14587604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems.
    Boëx C; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Oct; 114(4 Pt 1):2058-65. PubMed ID: 14587605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Channel interactions in patients using the Ineraid multichannel cochlear implant.
    Favre E; Pelizzone M
    Hear Res; 1993 Apr; 66(2):150-6. PubMed ID: 8509306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration.
    Bierer JA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Mar; 121(3):1642-53. PubMed ID: 17407901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses for lateral and medial placement of the Clarion HiFocus electrode.
    Firszt JB; Wackym PA; Gaggl W; Burg LS; Reeder RM
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):184-90. PubMed ID: 12677114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing.
    Nelson DA; Donaldson GS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Dec; 112(6):2932-47. PubMed ID: 12509014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of pulse rate and electrode array design on intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users.
    Kreft HA; Donaldson GS; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Oct; 116(4 Pt 1):2258-68. PubMed ID: 15532657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Channel interactions with high-rate biphasic electrical stimulation in cochlear implant subjects.
    de Balthasar C; Boëx C; Cosendai G; Valentini G; Sigrist A; Pelizzone M
    Hear Res; 2003 Aug; 182(1-2):77-87. PubMed ID: 12948604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pure-Tone Masking Patterns for Monopolar and Phantom Electrical Stimulation in Cochlear Implants.
    Saoji AA; Koka K; Litvak LM; Finley CC
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):124-130. PubMed ID: 28700446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients.
    Saoji AA; Litvak LM; Hughes ML
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):559-67. PubMed ID: 19617837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.
    Bierer JA; Nye AD
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):641-51. PubMed ID: 25036146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Electrical cochlear stimulation in the deaf cat: comparisons between psychophysical and central auditory neuronal thresholds.
    Beitel RE; Snyder RL; Schreiner CE; Raggio MW; Leake PA
    J Neurophysiol; 2000 Apr; 83(4):2145-62. PubMed ID: 10758124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Adult cochlear implant patient performance with evolving electrode technology.
    Zwolan T; Kileny PR; Smith S; Mills D; Koch D; Osberger MJ
    Otol Neurotol; 2001 Nov; 22(6):844-9. PubMed ID: 11698806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Spread of excitation and channel interaction in single- and dual-electrode cochlear implant stimulation.
    Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; Vanpoucke FJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):367-76. PubMed ID: 22048258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A longitudinal study of electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance in children using the Clarion cochlear implant.
    Henkin Y; Kaplan-Neeman R; Kronenberg J; Migirov L; Hildesheimer M; Muchnik C
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 126(6):581-6. PubMed ID: 16720441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of electrical current configuration on stimulus detection.
    Pfingst BE; Miller AL; Morris DJ; Zwolan TA; Spelman FA; Clopton BM
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():127-31. PubMed ID: 7668603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Relationship Between Peripheral and Psychophysical Measures of Amplitude Modulation Detection in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Tejani VD; Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):e268-e284. PubMed ID: 28207576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Behavioral and electrophysiological responses to electrical stimulation in the cat. I. Absolute thresholds.
    Smith DW; Finley CC; van den Honert C; Olszyk VB; Konrad KE
    Hear Res; 1994 Dec; 81(1-2):1-10. PubMed ID: 7737916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity.
    Snyder RL; Middlebrooks JC; Bonham BH
    Hear Res; 2008 Jan; 235(1-2):23-38. PubMed ID: 18037252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cortical responses to cochlear implant stimulation: channel interactions.
    Bierer JA; Middlebrooks JC
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Mar; 5(1):32-48. PubMed ID: 14564662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.