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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16715356)

  • 41. Forward-masking patterns produced by symmetric and asymmetric pulse shapes in electric hearing.
    Macherey O; van Wieringen A; Carlyon RP; Dhooge I; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jan; 127(1):326-38. PubMed ID: 20058980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Auditory nerve responses to monophasic and biphasic electric stimuli.
    Miller CA; Robinson BK; Rubinstein JT; Abbas PJ; Runge-Samuelson CL
    Hear Res; 2001 Jan; 151(1-2):79-94. PubMed ID: 11124454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users.
    Zhou N; Xu L; Pfingst BE
    Hear Res; 2012 Feb; 284(1-2):25-32. PubMed ID: 22245714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Effects of electrical pulse polarity shape on intra cochlear neural responses in humans: triphasic pulses with cathodic second phase.
    Bahmer A; Baumann U
    Hear Res; 2013 Dec; 306():123-30. PubMed ID: 24161948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Stimulus features affecting psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea. III. Pulse polarity.
    Coste RL; Pfingst BE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1996 May; 99(5):3099-108. PubMed ID: 8642120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants.
    Pfingst BE; Xu L; Thompson CS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Apr; 121(4):2236-46. PubMed ID: 17471737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Effect of Pulse Rate on Loudness Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Azadpour M; McKay CM; Svirsky MA
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Jun; 19(3):287-299. PubMed ID: 29532190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Effects of cochlear-implant pulse rate and inter-channel timing on channel interactions and thresholds.
    Middlebrooks JC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Jul; 116(1):452-68. PubMed ID: 15296005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Relationships among loudness indexes in cochlear-implant patients.
    Kuk FK; Tyler RS; Gantz BJ; Bertschy M
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 1990 Nov; 116(11):1320-4. PubMed ID: 2242264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Interactions between pulse separation and pulse polarity order in cochlear implants.
    Miller AL; Morris DJ; Pfingst BE
    Hear Res; 1997 Jul; 109(1-2):21-33. PubMed ID: 9259233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Tripolar configuration and pulse shape in cochlear implants reduce channel interactions in the temporal domain.
    Quass GL; Kral A
    Hear Res; 2024 Mar; 443():108953. PubMed ID: 38277881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The relation between polarity sensitivity and neural degeneration in a computational model of cochlear implant stimulation.
    Kalkman RK; Briaire JJ; Dekker DMT; Frijns JHM
    Hear Res; 2022 Mar; 415():108413. PubMed ID: 34952734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. A behavioral method to estimate charge integration efficiency in cochlear implant users.
    Zhou N; Dong L; Galvin JJ
    J Neurosci Methods; 2020 Aug; 342():108802. PubMed ID: 32522551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Effects of pulse separation on detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the human cochlea.
    Pfingst BE; Holloway LA; Razzaque SA
    Hear Res; 1996 Sep; 98(1-2):77-92. PubMed ID: 8880183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Detection of small across-channel timing differences by cochlear implantees.
    Carlyon RP; Geurts L; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2000 Mar; 141(1-2):140-54. PubMed ID: 10713502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The Perception of Ramped Pulse Shapes in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Navntoft CA; Landsberger DM; Barkat TR; Marozeau J
    Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211061116. PubMed ID: 34935552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Investigation of Electrically Evoked Auditory Brainstem Responses to Multi-Pulse Stimulation of High Frequency in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Saeedi A; Hemmert W
    Front Neurosci; 2020; 14():615. PubMed ID: 32694972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Loudness perception with pulsatile electrical stimulation: the effect of interpulse intervals.
    McKay CM; McDermott HJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Aug; 104(2 Pt 1):1061-74. PubMed ID: 9714925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.