550 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19617837)
1. 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]
2. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.
Busby PA; Battmer RD; Pesch J
Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):853-64. PubMed ID: 18633324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Spread of excitation and channel interaction in single- and dual-electrode cochlear implant stimulation.
Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; Vanpoucke FJ; Frijns JH
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):367-76. PubMed ID: 22048258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Electrode interaction in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of straight and contour electrode arrays.
Xi X; Ji F; Han D; Hong M; Chen A
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2009; 71(4):228-37. PubMed ID: 19707042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Auditory brainstem activity and development evoked by apical versus basal cochlear implant electrode stimulation in children.
Gordon KA; Papsin BC; Harrison RV
Clin Neurophysiol; 2007 Aug; 118(8):1671-84. PubMed ID: 17588811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of peri-modiolar cochlear implant positioning on auditory nerve responses: a neural response telemetry study.
van Weert S; Stokroos RJ; Rikers MM; van Dijk P
Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jul; 125(7):725-31. PubMed ID: 16012034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict C-levels in the Tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor.
Alvarez I; de la Torre A; Sainz M; Roldán C; Schoesser H; Spitzer P
Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):134-45. PubMed ID: 19838116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of widening electrode separation on current steering performance.
Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; Vanpoucke FJ; Frijns JH
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(2):221-9. PubMed ID: 21063206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Electrophysiologic effects of placing cochlear implant electrodes in a perimodiolar position in young children.
Wackym PA; Firszt JB; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Reeder RM; Raulie JC
Laryngoscope; 2004 Jan; 114(1):71-6. PubMed ID: 14709998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A longitudinal study of electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance in children using the Clarion cochlear implant.
Henkin Y; Kaplan-Neeman R; Kronenberg J; Migirov L; Hildesheimer M; Muchnik C
Acta Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 126(6):581-6. PubMed ID: 16720441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Electrically evoked compound action potential measures for virtual channels versus physical electrodes.
Hughes ML; Goulson AM
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):323-30. PubMed ID: 21187752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Use of "phantom electrode" technique to extend the range of pitches available through a cochlear implant.
Saoji AA; Litvak LM
Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):693-701. PubMed ID: 20467321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 1. Growth of loudness and ECAP amplitude with current.
Cohen LT
Hear Res; 2009 Jan; 247(2):87-99. PubMed ID: 19063956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. An objective method to measure electrode independence in cochlear implant patients with a dual-masker forward masking technique.
Klop WM; Frijns JH; Soede W; Briaire JJ
Hear Res; 2009 Jul; 253(1-2):3-14. PubMed ID: 19306921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
