107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16315446)
1. A psychophysical forward masking comparison of longitudinal spread of neural excitation in the Contour and straight Nucleus electrode arrays.
Cohen LT; Lenarz T; Battmer RD; Bender von Saebelkampf C; Busby PA; Cowan RS
Int J Audiol; 2005 Oct; 44(10):559-66. PubMed ID: 16315446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Psychophysical measures in patients fitted with Contour and straight Nucleus electrode arrays.
Cohen LT; Saunders E; Knight MR; Cowan RS
Hear Res; 2006 Feb; 212(1-2):160-75. PubMed ID: 16403611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking.
Cohen LT; Richardson LM; Saunders E; Cowan RS
Hear Res; 2003 May; 179(1-2):72-87. PubMed ID: 12742240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers.
Dingemanse JG; Frijns JH; Briaire JJ
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):645-57. PubMed ID: 17086076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays.
Hughes ML; Abbas PJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Mar; 119(3):1538-47. PubMed ID: 16583899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance.
Saunders E; Cohen L; Aschendorff A; Shapiro W; Knight M; Stecker M; Richter B; Waltzman S; Tykocinski M; Roland T; Laszig R; Cowan R
Ear Hear; 2002 Feb; 23(1 Suppl):28S-40S. PubMed ID: 11883764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Spatial spread of neural excitation: comparison of compound action potential and forward-masking data in cochlear implant recipients.
Cohen LT; Saunders E; Richardson LM
Int J Audiol; 2004 Jun; 43(6):346-55. PubMed ID: 15457817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Psychophysics of a prototype peri-modiolar cochlear implant electrode array.
Cohen LT; Saunders E; Clark GM
Hear Res; 2001 May; 155(1-2):63-81. PubMed ID: 11335077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus.
Shannon RV; Otto SR
Hear Res; 1990 Aug; 47(1-2):159-68. PubMed ID: 2228792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Electrode interaction in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of straight and contour electrode arrays.
Xi X; Ji F; Han D; Hong M; Chen A
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2009; 71(4):228-37. PubMed ID: 19707042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. ECAP, ESR and subjective levels for two different nucleus 24 electrode arrays.
Polak M; Hodges A; Balkany T
Otol Neurotol; 2005 Jul; 26(4):639-45. PubMed ID: 16015160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.
Busby PA; Battmer RD; Pesch J
Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):853-64. PubMed ID: 18633324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The contour electrode array: safety study and initial patient trials of a new perimodiolar design.
Tykocinski M; Saunders E; Cohen LT; Treaba C; Briggs RJ; Gibson P; Clark GM; Cowan RS
Otol Neurotol; 2001 Jan; 22(1):33-41. PubMed ID: 11314713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Place specificity of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implants: the influence of residual masking.
Fielden CA; Kluk K; McKay CM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4109-23. PubMed ID: 23742363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of pulse phase duration on forward masking and spread of excitation in cochlear implant listeners.
Zhou N; Zhu Z; Dong L; Galvin JJ
PLoS One; 2020; 15(7):e0236179. PubMed ID: 32687516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Contralateral masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the non-implanted ear.
James C; Blamey P; Shallop JK; Incerti PV; Nicholas AM
Audiol Neurootol; 2001; 6(2):87-97. PubMed ID: 11385182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Estimation of stimulus attenuation in cochlear implants.
Smit JE; Hanekom T; Hanekom JJ
J Neurosci Methods; 2009 Jun; 180(2):363-73. PubMed ID: 19464523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
