636 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18384971)
1. Effects of phase duration and pulse rate on loudness and pitch percepts in the first auditory midbrain implant patients: Comparison to cochlear implant and auditory brainstem implant results.
Lim HH; Lenarz T; Joseph G; Battmer RD; Patrick JF; Lenarz M
Neuroscience; 2008 Jun; 154(1):370-80. PubMed ID: 18384971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of pulse rate on thresholds and loudness of biphasic and alternating monophasic pulse trains in electrical hearing.
van Wieringen A; Carlyon RP; Macherey O; Wouters J
Hear Res; 2006 Oct; 220(1-2):49-60. PubMed ID: 16904278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients.
Potts LG; Skinner MW; Gotter BD; Strube MJ; Brenner CA
Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):495-511. PubMed ID: 17609612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The role of intensity upon pitch perception in cochlear implant recipients.
Arnoldner C; Kaider A; Hamzavi J
Laryngoscope; 2006 Oct; 116(10):1760-5. PubMed ID: 17003738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of inter-phase gap on the sensitivity of cochlear implant users to electrical stimulation.
Carlyon RP; van Wieringen A; Deeks JM; Long CJ; Lyzenga J; Wouters J
Hear Res; 2005 Jul; 205(1-2):210-24. PubMed ID: 15953530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: II. The influence of neural population on the ECAP recovery function and refractoriness.
Botros A; Psarros C
Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):380-91. PubMed ID: 20090532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of stimulus manipulation on electrophysiological responses of pediatric cochlear implant users. Part II: rate effects.
Davids T; Valero J; Papsin BC; Harrison RV; Gordon KA
Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 244(1-2):15-24. PubMed ID: 18692122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The auditory midbrain implant: a new auditory prosthesis for neural deafness-concept and device description.
Lenarz T; Lim HH; Reuter G; Patrick JF; Lenarz M
Otol Neurotol; 2006 Sep; 27(6):838-43. PubMed ID: 16936570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Inferior colliculus responses to multichannel microstimulation of the ventral cochlear nucleus: implications for auditory brain stem implants.
Shivdasani MN; Mauger SJ; Rathbone GD; Paolini AG
J Neurophysiol; 2008 Jan; 99(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 17928560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Audiologic outcomes with the penetrating electrode auditory brainstem implant.
Otto SR; Shannon RV; Wilkinson EP; Hitselberger WE; McCreery DB; Moore JK; Brackmann DE
Otol Neurotol; 2008 Dec; 29(8):1147-54. PubMed ID: 18931643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Changes in the hearing and discomfort thresholds in patients with the Clark/nucleus inner ear prosthesis].
Battmer RD; Lehnhardt E; Laszig R
Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg); 1988 Aug; 67(8):412-5. PubMed ID: 3210875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparisons between neural response imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII bionic ear users with HiResolution sound processing strategies.
Han DM; Chen XQ; Zhao XT; Kong Y; Li YX; Liu S; Liu B; Mo LY
Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jul; 125(7):732-5. PubMed ID: 16012035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Brain stem responses evoked by stimulation of the mature cochlear nucleus with an auditory brain stem implant.
O'Driscoll M; El-Deredy W; Ramsden RT
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):286-99. PubMed ID: 21157353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: I. The relevance of ECAP threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear implant fitting.
Botros A; Psarros C
Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):367-79. PubMed ID: 20124902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Responses of neurons in the feline inferior colliculus to modulated electrical stimuli applied on and within the ventral cochlear nucleus; Implications for an advanced auditory brainstem implant.
McCreery D; Yadev K; Han M
Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():85-97. PubMed ID: 29573880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Hearing rehabilitation in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients: cochlear versus auditory brainstem implantation.
Vincenti V; Pasanisi E; Guida M; Di Trapani G; Sanna M
Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(4):273-80. PubMed ID: 18259080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Unanesthetized auditory cortex exhibits multiple codes for gaps in cochlear implant pulse trains.
Kirby AE; Middlebrooks JC
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2012 Feb; 13(1):67-80. PubMed ID: 21969022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Simultaneous and non-simultaneous dual electrode stimulation in cochlear implants: evidence for two neural response modalities.
Frijns JH; Kalkman RK; Vanpoucke FJ; Bongers JS; Briaire JJ
Acta Otolaryngol; 2009 Apr; 129(4):433-9. PubMed ID: 19117170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
