496 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19730148)
1. Evolution of cochlear implant arrays result in changes in behavioral and physiological responses in children.
Gordin A; Papsin B; James A; Gordon K
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Oct; 30(7):908-15. PubMed ID: 19730148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Modiolar coiling, electrical thresholds, and speech perception after cochlear implantation using the nucleus contour advance electrode with the advance off stylet technique.
Huang TC; Reitzen SD; Marrinan MS; Waltzman SB; Roland JT
Otol Neurotol; 2006 Feb; 27(2):159-66. PubMed ID: 16436984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses in adults and children: effects of lateral to medial placement of the nucleus 24 contour electrode array.
Runge-Samuelson C; Firszt JB; Gaggl W; Wackym PA
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Jun; 30(4):464-70. PubMed ID: 19300297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children.
Gordon KA; Papsin BC; Harrison RV
Ear Hear; 2004 Oct; 25(5):447-63. PubMed ID: 15599192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Programming cochlear implant stimulation levels in infants and children with a combination of objective measures.
Gordon K; Papsin BC; Harrison RV
Int J Audiol; 2004 Dec; 43 Suppl 1():S28-32. PubMed ID: 15732379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. From nucleus 24 to 513: changing cochlear implant design affects auditory response thresholds.
Gordon KA; Papsin BC
Otol Neurotol; 2013 Apr; 34(3):436-42. PubMed ID: 23370566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Electrically evoked amplitude modulation following response in cochlear implant candidates: comparison with auditory nerve response telemetry, subjective electrical stimulation, and speech perception.
Hirschfelder A; Gräbel S; Olze H
Otol Neurotol; 2012 Aug; 33(6):968-75. PubMed ID: 22772009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Evoked stapedius reflex and compound action potential thresholds versus most comfortable loudness level: assessment of their relation for charge-based fitting strategies in implant users.
Walkowiak A; Lorens A; Polak M; Kostek B; Skarzynski H; Szkielkowska A; Skarzynski PH
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2011; 73(4):189-95. PubMed ID: 21659787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of a novel, noninvasive, objective test of auditory nerve function in cochlear implant candidates.
Gräbel S; Hirschfelder A; Scheiber C; Olze H
Otol Neurotol; 2009 Sep; 30(6):716-24. PubMed ID: 19704358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Optimizing fitting in children using objective measures such as neural response imaging and electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold.
Caner G; Olgun L; Gültekin G; Balaban M
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):637-40. PubMed ID: 17667772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Conservation of residual acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation.
Balkany TJ; Connell SS; Hodges AV; Payne SL; Telischi FF; Eshraghi AA; Angeli SI; Germani R; Messiah S; Arheart KL
Otol Neurotol; 2006 Dec; 27(8):1083-8. PubMed ID: 17130798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Activity-dependent developmental plasticity of the auditory brain stem in children who use cochlear implants.
Gordon KA; Papsin BC; Harrison RV
Ear Hear; 2003 Dec; 24(6):485-500. PubMed ID: 14663348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The relationship between the intraoperative ECAP threshold and postoperative behavioral levels: the difference between postlingually deafened adults and prelingually deafened pediatric cochlear implant users.
Morita T; Naito Y; Hirai T; Yamaguchi S; Ito J
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2003 Feb; 260(2):67-72. PubMed ID: 12582781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Dose-dependent suppression of the electrically elicited stapedius reflex by general anesthetics in children undergoing cochlear implant surgery.
Crawford MW; White MC; Propst EJ; Zaarour C; Cushing S; Pehora C; James AL; Gordon KA; Papsin BC
Anesth Analg; 2009 May; 108(5):1480-7. PubMed ID: 19372325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
