379 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20090533)
1. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.
Bierer JA; Faulkner KF
Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):247-58. PubMed ID: 20090533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interfaces: electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses measured with the partial tripolar configuration.
Bierer JA; Faulkner KF; Tremblay KL
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):436-44. PubMed ID: 21178633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.
Bierer JA; Nye AD
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):641-51. PubMed ID: 25036146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Psychophysical Tuning Curves as a Correlate of Electrode Position in Cochlear Implant Listeners.
DeVries L; Arenberg JG
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Oct; 19(5):571-587. PubMed ID: 29869047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.
Bierer JA
Trends Amplif; 2010 Jun; 14(2):84-95. PubMed ID: 20724356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users.
Nelson DA; Kreft HA; Anderson ES; Donaldson GS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3916-33. PubMed ID: 21682414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Current Focusing to Reduce Channel Interaction for Distant Electrodes in Cochlear Implant Programs.
DeVries L; Arenberg JG
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518813811. PubMed ID: 30488764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels With Relatively Poor Electrode-Neuron Interfaces Using the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.
Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(4):961-973. PubMed ID: 31972772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration.
Bierer JA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Mar; 121(3):1642-53. PubMed ID: 17407901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation.
Zhu Z; Tang Q; Zeng FG; Guan T; Ye D
Hear Res; 2012 Jan; 283(1-2):45-58. PubMed ID: 22138630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Pure-Tone Masking Patterns for Monopolar and Phantom Electrical Stimulation in Cochlear Implants.
Saoji AA; Koka K; Litvak LM; Finley CC
Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):124-130. PubMed ID: 28700446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations.
Berenstein CK; Mens LH; Mulder JJ; Vanpoucke FJ
Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):250-60. PubMed ID: 18595189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.
DeVries L; Scheperle R; Bierer JA
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Jun; 17(3):237-52. PubMed ID: 26926152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Modeling the electrode-neuron interface of cochlear implants: effects of neural survival, electrode placement, and the partial tripolar configuration.
Goldwyn JH; Bierer SM; Bierer JA
Hear Res; 2010 Sep; 268(1-2):93-104. PubMed ID: 20580801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Recovery from forward masking in cochlear implant listeners depends on stimulation mode, level, and electrode location.
Chatterjee M; Kulkarni AM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):3190. PubMed ID: 28682084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reducing Channel Interaction Through Cochlear Implant Programming May Improve Speech Perception: Current Focusing and Channel Deactivation.
Bierer JA; Litvak L
Trends Hear; 2016 Jun; 20():. PubMed ID: 27317668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: coding of stimulus channel and current level.
Middlebrooks JC; Bierer JA
J Neurophysiol; 2002 Jan; 87(1):493-507. PubMed ID: 11784765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners.
Kwon BJ; van den Honert C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 May; 119(5 Pt 1):2994-3002. PubMed ID: 16708955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
