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 *

204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18595189)

  • 1. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations.
    Berenstein CK; Mens LH; Mulder JJ; Vanpoucke FJ
    Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):250-60. PubMed ID: 18595189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study.
    Mens LH; Berenstein CK
    Otol Neurotol; 2005 Sep; 26(5):957-64. PubMed ID: 16151343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interfaces: electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses measured with the partial tripolar configuration.
    Bierer JA; Faulkner KF; Tremblay KL
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):436-44. PubMed ID: 21178633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.
    Bierer JA; Faulkner KF
    Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):247-58. PubMed ID: 20090533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients.
    Landsberger DM; Srinivasan AG
    Hear Res; 2009 Aug; 254(1-2):34-41. PubMed ID: 19383534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Within-subjects comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 speech processing strategies: speech perception and its relation to place-pitch sensitivity.
    Donaldson GS; Dawson PK; Borden LZ
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(2):238-50. PubMed ID: 21084987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A Dynamically Focusing Cochlear Implant Strategy Can Improve Vowel Identification in Noise.
    Arenberg JG; Parkinson WS; Litvak L; Chen C; Kreft HA; Oxenham AJ
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(6):1136-1145. PubMed ID: 29529006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.
    Bierer JA; Nye AD
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):641-51. PubMed ID: 25036146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.
    Plant K; Holden L; Skinner M; Arcaroli J; Whitford L; Law MA; Nel E
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):381-93. PubMed ID: 17485987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dynamic Current Focusing: A Novel Approach to Loudness Coding in Cochlear Implants.
    de Jong MAM; Briaire JJ; Frijns JHM
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):34-44. PubMed ID: 29742542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Adding simultaneous stimulating channels to reduce power consumption in cochlear implants.
    Langner F; Saoji AA; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 345():96-107. PubMed ID: 28104408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of continuous interleaved sampling and simultaneous analog stimulation speech processing strategies in newly implanted adults with a Clarion 1.2 cochlear implant.
    Zwolan TA; Kileny PR; Smith S; Waltzman S; Chute P; Domico E; Firszt J; Hodges A; Mills D; Whearty M; Osberger MJ; Fisher L
    Otol Neurotol; 2005 May; 26(3):455-65. PubMed ID: 15891649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Dynamic Current Focusing Compared to Monopolar Stimulation in a Take-Home Trial of Cochlear Implant Users.
    van Groesen NRA; Briaire JJ; de Jong MAM; Frijns JHM
    Ear Hear; 2023 Mar-Apr 01; 44(2):306-317. PubMed ID: 36279119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration.
    Bierer JA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Mar; 121(3):1642-53. PubMed ID: 17407901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing.
    Firszt JB; Holden LK; Reeder RM; Skinner MW
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Feb; 30(2):146-52. PubMed ID: 19106769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Effects of electrode configuration and place of stimulation on speech perception with cochlear prostheses.
    Pfingst BE; Franck KH; Xu L; Bauer EM; Zwolan TA
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2001 Jun; 2(2):87-103. PubMed ID: 11550528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy.
    Holden LK; Skinner MW; Holden TA; Demorest ME
    Ear Hear; 2002 Oct; 23(5):463-76. PubMed ID: 12411779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.