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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15811709)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration.
    Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 202(1-2):55-62. PubMed ID: 15811699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Use of "phantom electrode" technique to extend the range of pitches available through a cochlear implant.
    Saoji AA; Litvak LM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):693-701. PubMed ID: 20467321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Auditory stream segregation in cochlear implant listeners: measures based on temporal discrimination and interleaved melody recognition.
    Cooper HR; Roberts B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Oct; 126(4):1975-87. PubMed ID: 19813809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Using current steering to increase spectral resolution in CII and HiRes 90K users.
    Koch DB; Downing M; Osberger MJ; Litvak L
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):38S-41S. PubMed ID: 17496643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Physiologic identification of eighth nerve subdivisions: direct recordings with bipolar and monopolar electrodes.
    Nguyen BH; Javel E; Levine SC
    Am J Otol; 1999 Jul; 20(4):522-34. PubMed ID: 10431897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of stimulus level on electrode-place discrimination in human subjects with cochlear implants.
    Pfingst BE; Holloway LA; Zwolan TA; Collins LM
    Hear Res; 1999 Aug; 134(1-2):105-15. PubMed ID: 10452380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Interpulse interval discrimination within and across channels: comparison of monopolar and tripolar mode of stimulation.
    Fielden CA; Kluk K; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 May; 135(5):2913-22. PubMed ID: 24815271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Auditory brainstem activity and development evoked by apical versus basal cochlear implant electrode stimulation in children.
    Gordon KA; Papsin BC; Harrison RV
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2007 Aug; 118(8):1671-84. PubMed ID: 17588811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.