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 *

200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19513792)

  • 1. Interaural time-delay sensitivity in bilateral cochlear implant users: effects of pulse rate, modulation rate, and place of stimulation.
    van Hoesel RJ; Jones GL; Litovsky RY
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2009 Dec; 10(4):557-67. PubMed ID: 19513792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Sensitivity to binaural timing in bilateral cochlear implant users.
    van Hoesel RJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Apr; 121(4):2192-206. PubMed ID: 17471733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of interaural pitch matching and auditory image centering on binaural sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
    Kan A; Litovsky RY; Goupell MJ
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):e62-8. PubMed ID: 25565660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants.
    van Hoesel RJ; Tyler RS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Mar; 113(3):1617-30. PubMed ID: 12656396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear implant user.
    Long CJ; Eddington DK; Colburn HS; Rabinowitz WM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Sep; 114(3):1565-74. PubMed ID: 14514210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sensitivity of bilateral cochlear implant users to fine-structure and envelope interaural time differences.
    Noel VA; Eddington DK
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2314-28. PubMed ID: 23556598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Improving Interaural Time Difference Sensitivity Using Short Inter-pulse Intervals with Amplitude-Modulated Pulse Trains in Bilateral Cochlear Implants.
    Srinivasan S; Laback B; Majdak P; Arnoldner C
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2020 Feb; 21(1):105-120. PubMed ID: 32040655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sensitivity to interaural level and envelope time differences of two bilateral cochlear implant listeners using clinical sound processors.
    Laback B; Pok SM; Baumgartner WD; Deutsch WA; Schmid K
    Ear Hear; 2004 Oct; 25(5):488-500. PubMed ID: 15599195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Rate dependent neural responses of interaural-time-difference cues in fine-structure and envelope.
    Hu H; Ewert SD; Kollmeier B; Vickers D
    PeerJ; 2024; 12():e17104. PubMed ID: 38680894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Pulse-rate discrimination by cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners with and without binaural cues.
    Carlyon RP; Long CJ; Deeks JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Apr; 123(4):2276-86. PubMed ID: 18397032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Relationship Between Interaural Insertion-Depth Differences, Scalar Location, and Interaural Time-Difference Processing in Adult Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
    Cleary M; Bernstein JGW; Stakhovskaya OA; Noble J; Kolberg E; Jensen KK; Hoa M; Kim HJ; Goupell MJ
    Trends Hear; 2022; 26():23312165221129165. PubMed ID: 36379607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Interaural Time-Difference Discrimination as a Measure of Place of Stimulation for Cochlear-Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness.
    Bernstein JGW; Stakhovskaya OA; Schuchman GI; Jensen KK; Goupell MJ
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518765514. PubMed ID: 29623771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reweighting of Binaural Localization Cues in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
    Klingel M; Laback B
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2022 Feb; 23(1):119-136. PubMed ID: 34812980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Across-frequency combination of interaural time difference in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
    Ihlefeld A; Kan A; Litovsky RY
    Front Syst Neurosci; 2014; 8():22. PubMed ID: 24653681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Channel Interaction and Current Level Affect Across-Electrode Integration of Interaural Time Differences in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
    Egger K; Majdak P; Laback B
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Feb; 17(1):55-67. PubMed ID: 26377826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
    Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1246. PubMed ID: 25190398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Neural Coding of Interaural Time Differences with Bilateral Cochlear Implants in Unanesthetized Rabbits.
    Chung Y; Hancock KE; Delgutte B
    J Neurosci; 2016 May; 36(20):5520-31. PubMed ID: 27194332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Sound-direction identification, interaural time delay discrimination, and speech intelligibility advantages in noise for a bilateral cochlear implant user.
    Van Hoesel R; Ramsden R; Odriscoll M
    Ear Hear; 2002 Apr; 23(2):137-49. PubMed ID: 11951849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Interaural time difference sensitivity under binaural cochlear implant stimulation persists at high pulse rates up to 900 pps.
    Buck AN; Buchholz S; Schnupp JW; Rosskothen-Kuhl N
    Sci Rep; 2023 Mar; 13(1):3785. PubMed ID: 36882473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of pulse shape on pitch sensitivity of cochlear implant users.
    Arslan NO; Luo X
    Hear Res; 2024 Sep; 450():109075. PubMed ID: 38986164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.