193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17453456)
1. Differences between electrode-assigned frequencies and cochlear implant recipient pitch perception.
Nardo WD; Cantore I; Cianfrone F; Melillo P; Fetoni AR; Paludetti G
Acta Otolaryngol; 2007 Apr; 127(4):370-7. PubMed ID: 17453456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cochlear implant patients' speech understanding in background noise: effect of mismatch between electrode assigned frequencies and perceived pitch.
Di Nardo W; Scorpecci A; Giannantonio S; Cianfrone F; Parrilla C; Paludetti G
J Laryngol Otol; 2010 Aug; 124(8):828-34. PubMed ID: 20202276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Standard cochlear implantation of adults with residual low-frequency hearing: implications for combined electro-acoustic stimulation.
Novak MA; Black JM; Koch DB
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):609-14. PubMed ID: 17514064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.
McDermott H; Sucher C; Simpson A
Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():2-7. PubMed ID: 19390169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Electric to acoustic pitch matching: a possible way to improve individual cochlear implant fitting.
Nardo WD; Cantore I; Marchese MR; Cianfrone F; Scorpecci A; Giannantonio S; Paludetti G
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2008 Nov; 265(11):1321-8. PubMed ID: 18379812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch.
Schatzer R; Vermeire K; Visser D; Krenmayr A; Kals M; Voormolen M; Van de Heyning P; Zierhofer C
Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():26-35. PubMed ID: 24252455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Results of partial deafness cochlear implantation using various electrode designs.
Skarzyński H; Lorens A; Piotrowska A; Podskarbi-Fayette R
Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():39-45. PubMed ID: 19390174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function.
Baumann U; Nobbe A
Hear Res; 2006 Mar; 213(1-2):34-42. PubMed ID: 16442249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Investigations on the tonotopy for patients with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid.
Niewiarowicz M; Stieler O
Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord); 2005; 126(2):75-80. PubMed ID: 16180345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Representation of acoustic signals in the human cochlea in presence of a cochlear implant electrode.
Kiefer J; Böhnke F; Adunka O; Arnold W
Hear Res; 2006 Nov; 221(1-2):36-43. PubMed ID: 16962268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Impact of low-frequency hearing.
Büchner A; Schüssler M; Battmer RD; Stöver T; Lesinski-Schiedat A; Lenarz T
Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():8-13. PubMed ID: 19390170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.
Stohl JS; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Perceptual dissimilarities among acoustic stimuli and ipsilateral electric stimuli.
McDermott HJ; Sucher CM
Hear Res; 2006 Aug; 218(1-2):81-8. PubMed ID: 16777362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Electrophonic hearing and cochlear implants.
Risberg A; Agelfors E; Lindström B; Bredberg G
Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():156-63. PubMed ID: 2356722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acoustic-electric stimulation.
Simpson A; McDermott HJ; Dowell RC; Sucher C; Briggs RJ
Int J Audiol; 2009 Feb; 48(2):63-73. PubMed ID: 19219690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
