550 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19617837)
21. Effects of parameter manipulations on spread of excitation measured with electrically-evoked compound action potentials.
van der Beek FB; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
Int J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 51(6):465-74. PubMed ID: 22315988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The intensity-pitch relation revisited: monopolar versus bipolar cochlear stimulation.
Arnoldner C; Riss D; Kaider A; Mair A; Wagenblast J; Baumgartner WD; Gstöttner W; Hamzavi JS
Laryngoscope; 2008 Sep; 118(9):1630-6. PubMed ID: 18545213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration.
Fu QJ
Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 202(1-2):55-62. PubMed ID: 15811699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: II. The influence of neural population on the ECAP recovery function and refractoriness.
Botros A; Psarros C
Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):380-91. PubMed ID: 20090532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Effect of electrode impedance on spread of excitation and pitch perception using electrically coupled "dual-electrode" stimulation.
Hughes ML; Baudhuin JL; Goehring JL
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(2):e50-6. PubMed ID: 25250960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. [The promontory test and electrocochleography with reference to indications for cochlear implant].
Battmer RD; Lehnhardt E; Laszig R
HNO; 1986 Apr; 34(4):139-42. PubMed ID: 3754857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. ECAP spread of excitation with virtual channels and physical electrodes.
Hughes ML; Stille LJ; Baudhuin JL; Goehring JL
Hear Res; 2013 Dec; 306():93-103. PubMed ID: 24095669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Modeling the relationship between psychophysical perception and electrically evoked compound action potential threshold in young cochlear implant recipients: clinical implications for implant fitting.
Thai-Van H; Truy E; Charasse B; Boutitie F; Chanal JM; Cochard N; Piron JP; Ribas S; Deguine O; Fraysse B; Mondain M; Uziel A; Collet L
Clin Neurophysiol; 2004 Dec; 115(12):2811-24. PubMed ID: 15546789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems.
Boëx C; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Oct; 114(4 Pt 1):2058-65. PubMed ID: 14587605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Intracochlear and extracochlear ECAPs suggest antidromic action potentials.
Miller CA; Abbas PJ; Hay-McCutcheon MJ; Robinson BK; Nourski KV; Jeng FC
Hear Res; 2004 Dec; 198(1-2):75-86. PubMed ID: 15567605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses for lateral and medial placement of the Clarion HiFocus electrode.
Firszt JB; Wackym PA; Gaggl W; Burg LS; Reeder RM
Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):184-90. PubMed ID: 12677114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Packing of the cochleostomy site affects auditory nerve response thresholds in precurved off-stylet cochlear implants.
Gordin A; Papsin B; Gordon K
Otol Neurotol; 2010 Feb; 31(2):204-9. PubMed ID: 20101160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [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]
36. The "pull-back" technique for Nucleus 24 perimodiolar electrode insertion.
Todt I; Basta D; Eisenschenk A; Ernst A
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2005 May; 132(5):751-4. PubMed ID: 15886630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 4. model development at low pulse rates: general model and application to individuals.
Cohen LT
Hear Res; 2009 Feb; 248(1-2):15-30. PubMed ID: 19110049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Peripheral and Central Contributions to Cortical Responses in Cochlear Implant Users.
Scheperle RA; Abbas PJ
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(4):430-40. PubMed ID: 25658747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 3. ECAP during bursts and loudness as function of burst duration.
Cohen LT
Hear Res; 2009 Jan; 247(2):112-21. PubMed ID: 19068227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Electrode interaction in pediatric cochlear implant subjects.
Eisen MD; Franck KH
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 6(2):160-70. PubMed ID: 15952052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
