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 *

98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18771694)

  • 1. An improved masker-probe method for stimulus artifact reduction in electrically evoked compound action potentials.
    Alvarez I; de la Torre A; Sainz M; Roldan C; Schoesser H; Spitzer P
    J Neurosci Methods; 2008 Oct; 175(1):143-7. PubMed ID: 18771694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Generalized alternating stimulation: a novel method to reduce stimulus artifact in electrically evoked compound action potentials.
    Alvarez I; de la Torre A; Sainz M; Roldan C; Schoesser H; Spitzer P
    J Neurosci Methods; 2007 Sep; 165(1):95-103. PubMed ID: 17624444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reducing blanking artifact in electrically evoked compound action potentials.
    Alvarez I; de la Torre A; Sainz M; Roldán C
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2010 Mar; 97(3):257-63. PubMed ID: 19833406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential.
    Abbas PJ; Hughes ML; Brown CJ; Miller CA; South H
    Audiol Neurootol; 2004; 9(4):203-13. PubMed ID: 15205548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers.
    Dingemanse JG; Frijns JH; Briaire JJ
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):645-57. PubMed ID: 17086076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Recording of electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses after electrical stimulation with biphasic, triphasic and precision triphasic pulses.
    Bahmer A; Polak M; Baumann U
    Hear Res; 2010 Jan; 259(1-2):75-85. PubMed ID: 19850116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Recording and analysis of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) with MED-EL cochlear implants and different artifact reduction strategies in Matlab.
    Bahmer A; Peter O; Baumann U
    J Neurosci Methods; 2010 Aug; 191(1):66-74. PubMed ID: 20558202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients.
    Saoji AA; Litvak LM; Hughes ML
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):559-67. PubMed ID: 19617837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Application of triphasic pulses with adjustable phase amplitude ratio (PAR) for cochlear ECAP recording: I. amplitude growth functions.
    Bahmer A; Baumann U
    J Neurosci Methods; 2012 Mar; 205(1):202-11. PubMed ID: 22209768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Application of triphasic pulses with adjustable phase amplitude ratio (PAR) for cochlear ECAP recording: II. recovery functions.
    Bahmer A; Baumann U
    J Neurosci Methods; 2012 Mar; 205(1):212-20. PubMed ID: 22202890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 5. refractory recovery and facilitation.
    Cohen LT
    Hear Res; 2009 Feb; 248(1-2):1-14. PubMed ID: 19110048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Estimation of stimulus attenuation in cochlear implants.
    Smit JE; Hanekom T; Hanekom JJ
    J Neurosci Methods; 2009 Jun; 180(2):363-73. PubMed ID: 19464523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Facilitation and refractoriness of the electrically evoked compound action potential.
    Hey M; Müller-Deile J; Hessel H; Killian M
    Hear Res; 2017 Nov; 355():14-22. PubMed ID: 28947082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Stille LJ
    Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):679-92. PubMed ID: 20505513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of intra- versus post-operatively acquired electrically evoked compound action potentials.
    van Wermeskerken GK; van Olphen AF; van Zanten GA
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Oct; 45(10):589-94. PubMed ID: 17062500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Measuring the refractoriness of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve.
    Morsnowski A; Charasse B; Collet L; Killian M; Müller-Deile J
    Audiol Neurootol; 2006; 11(6):389-402. PubMed ID: 17008774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Long-latency evoked acoustic potentials in patients with cochlear implants compared with normally hearing subjects].
    Danilkina GV; Wolberet T; Vishniakov VV; Hoppe U
    Vestn Otorinolaringol; 2009; (3):16-8. PubMed ID: 19692958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of acoustic noise on the auditory nerve compound action potentials evoked by electric pulse trains.
    Nourski KV; Abbas PJ; Miller CA; Robinson BK; Jeng FC
    Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 202(1-2):141-53. PubMed ID: 15811706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A Comparison of Alternating Polarity and Forward Masking Artifact-Reduction Methods to Resolve the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.
    Baudhuin JL; Hughes ML; Goehring JL
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(4):e247-55. PubMed ID: 26928001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An improved method of reducing stimulus artifact in the electrically evoked whole-nerve potential.
    Miller CA; Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
    Ear Hear; 2000 Aug; 21(4):280-90. PubMed ID: 10981604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.