141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20136187)
21. Effects of stimulus duration on amplitude modulation processing with cochlear implants.
Luo X; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Feb; 127(2):EL23-9. PubMed ID: 20136174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Cochlear Implant Users can Effectively Combine Place and Timing Cues for Pitch Perception.
Goldsworthy RL; Bissmeyer SRS
Ear Hear; 2023 Nov-Dec 01; 44(6):1410-1422. PubMed ID: 37788011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Frequency selectivity of contralateral residual acoustic hearing in bimodal cochlear implant users, and limitations on the ability to match the pitch of electric and acoustic stimuli.
Green T; Faulkner A; Rosen S
Int J Audiol; 2012 May; 51(5):389-98. PubMed ID: 22201528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Rate modulation detection thresholds for cochlear implant users.
Brochier T; McKay C; McDermott H
J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Feb; 143(2):1214. PubMed ID: 29495682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing.
Kong YY; Cruz R; Jones JA; Zeng FG
Ear Hear; 2004 Apr; 25(2):173-85. PubMed ID: 15064662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A method to dynamically control unwanted loudness cues when measuring amplitude modulation detection in cochlear implant users.
Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Oba S; Başkent D
J Neurosci Methods; 2014 Jan; 222():207-12. PubMed ID: 24269251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Encoding and decoding amplitude-modulated cochlear implant stimuli--a point process analysis.
Goldwyn JH; Shea-Brown E; Rubinstein JT
J Comput Neurosci; 2010 Jun; 28(3):405-24. PubMed ID: 20177761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.
Winn MB; Won JH; Moon IJ
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(6):e377-e390. PubMed ID: 27438871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Auditory steady-state responses in cochlear implant users: Effect of modulation frequency and stimulation artifacts.
Gransier R; Deprez H; Hofmann M; Moonen M; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
Hear Res; 2016 May; 335():149-160. PubMed ID: 26994660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Pulse-rate discrimination deficit in cochlear implant users: is the upper limit of pitch peripheral or central?
Zhou N; Mathews J; Dong L
Hear Res; 2019 Jan; 371():1-10. PubMed ID: 30423498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear.
Carlyon RP; Macherey O; Frijns JH; Axon PR; Kalkman RK; Boyle P; Baguley DM; Briggs J; Deeks JM; Briaire JJ; Barreau X; Dauman R
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2010 Dec; 11(4):625-40. PubMed ID: 20526727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Simulating electrical modulation detection thresholds using a biophysical model of the auditory nerve.
O'Brien GE; Imennov NS; Rubinstein JT
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 May; 139(5):2448. PubMed ID: 27250141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients.
Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Advantages of Pulse Rate Compared to Modulation Frequency for Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.
Goldsworthy RL; Bissmeyer SRS; Camarena A
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2022 Feb; 23(1):137-150. PubMed ID: 34981263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Experimental assessment of polyphonic tones with cochlear implants.
Penninger RT; Limb CJ; Vermeire K; Leman M; Dhooge I
Otol Neurotol; 2013 Sep; 34(7):1267-71. PubMed ID: 23921943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Rate and Temporal Coding of Regular and Irregular Pulse Trains in Auditory Midbrain of Normal-Hearing and Cochlear-Implanted Rabbits.
Su Y; Chung Y; Goodman DFM; Hancock KE; Delgutte B
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2021 Jun; 22(3):319-347. PubMed ID: 33891217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Modeled auditory nerve responses to amplitude modulated cochlear implant stimulation.
van Gendt MJ; Briaire JJ; Kalkman RK; Frijns JHM
Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():19-33. PubMed ID: 28625417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. On the existence in human auditory pathways of channels selectively tuned to the modulation present in frequency-modulated tones.
Kay RH; Matthews DR
J Physiol; 1972 Sep; 225(3):657-77. PubMed ID: 5076392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
