206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18391567)
21. Music to electric ears: pitch and timbre perception by cochlear implant patients.
Pressnitzer D; Bestel J; Fraysse B
Ann N Y Acad Sci; 2005 Dec; 1060():343-5. PubMed ID: 16597784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Effects of envelope shape on interaural envelope delay sensitivity in acoustic and electric hearing.
Laback B; Zimmermann I; Majdak P; Baumgartner WD; Pok SM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1515-29. PubMed ID: 21895091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Optimal gain control step sizes for bimodal stimulation.
Spirrov D; van Dijk B; Francart T
Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):184-193. PubMed ID: 29172895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Pitch perception in patients with a multi-channel cochlear implant using various pulses width.
Aronson L; Rosenhouse J; Podoshin L; Rosenhouse G; Zanutto SB
Med Prog Technol; 1994; 20(1-2):43-51. PubMed ID: 7968864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of Interaural Electrode Pairing Methods for Bilateral Cochlear Implants.
Hu H; Dietz M
Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26631108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Assessing binaural/bimodal advantages using auditory event-related potentials in subjects with cochlear implants.
Sasaki T; Yamamoto K; Iwaki T; Kubo T
Auris Nasus Larynx; 2009 Oct; 36(5):541-6. PubMed ID: 19297109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Bimodal listeners are not sensitive to interaural time differences in unmodulated low-frequency stimuli (L).
Lenssen A; Francart T; Brokx J; Wouters J
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3457-60. PubMed ID: 21682370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Loudness of simple and complex stimuli in electric hearing.
Zeng FG; Shannon RV
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():235-8. PubMed ID: 7668651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Measurement of individual loudness functions by trisection of loudness ranges.
Villchur E; Killion MC
Ear Hear; 2008 Oct; 29(5):693-703. PubMed ID: 18769270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [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]
34. Sensitivity of bimodal listeners to interaural time differences with modulated single- and multiple-channel stimuli.
Francart T; Lenssen A; Wouters J
Audiol Neurootol; 2011; 16(2):82-92. PubMed ID: 20571259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Bilateral cochlear implants in children: binaural unmasking.
Van Deun L; van Wieringen A; Francart T; Scherf F; Dhooge IJ; Deggouj N; Desloovere C; Van de Heyning PH; Offeciers FE; De Raeve L; Wouters J
Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14(4):240-7. PubMed ID: 19141992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Pitch matching of electric and acoustic stimuli.
Blamey PJ; Parisi ES; Clark GM
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():220-2. PubMed ID: 7668645
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. Sensitivity to interaural envelope correlation changes in bilateral cochlear-implant users.
Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jan; 137(1):335-49. PubMed ID: 25618064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
