340 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20558202)
21. Comparison of Two Measurement Paradigms to Determine Electrically Evoked Cochlear Nerve Responses and Their Correlation to Cochlear Nerve Cross-section in Infants and Young Children With Cochlear Implant.
Schrank L; Nachtigäller P; Müller J; Hempel JM; Canis M; Spiegel JL; Rader T
Otol Neurotol; 2024 Mar; 45(3):e206-e213. PubMed ID: 38361306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Guinea pig auditory nerve response triggered by a high density electrode array.
Jolly CN; Clopton BM; Spelman FA; Lineaweaver SK
Med Prog Technol; 1997; 21 Suppl():13-23. PubMed ID: 9413824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Electrically evoked compound action potentials are different depending on the site of cochlear stimulation.
van de Heyning P; Arauz SL; Atlas M; Baumgartner WD; Caversaccio M; Chester-Browne R; Estienne P; Gavilan J; Godey B; Gstöttner W; Han D; Hagen R; Kompis M; Kuzovkov V; Lassaletta L; Lefevre F; Li Y; Müller J; Parnes L; Kleine Punte A; Raine C; Rajan G; Rivas A; Rivas JA; Royle N; Sprinzl G; Stephan K; Walkowiak A; Yanov Y; Zimmermann K; Zorowka P; Skarzynski H
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016 Nov; 17(6):251-262. PubMed ID: 27900916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system.
Miller CA; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ; Chi SL
Hear Res; 2008 Aug; 242(1-2):184-97. PubMed ID: 18515023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Evaluation of an artifact reduction strategy for electrically evoked auditory steady-state responses: Simulations and measurements.
Bahmer A; Pieper S; Baumann U
J Neurosci Methods; 2018 Feb; 296():57-68. PubMed ID: 29291927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Estimation of stimulus attenuation in cochlear implants.
Smit JE; Hanekom T; Hanekom JJ
J Neurosci Methods; 2009 Jun; 180(2):363-73. PubMed ID: 19464523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Generalized alternating stimulation: a novel method to reduce stimulus artifact in electrically evoked compound action potentials.
Alvarez I; de la Torre A; Sainz M; Roldan C; Schoesser H; Spitzer P
J Neurosci Methods; 2007 Sep; 165(1):95-103. PubMed ID: 17624444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Recording of electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses after electrical stimulation with biphasic, triphasic and precision triphasic pulses.
Bahmer A; Polak M; Baumann U
Hear Res; 2010 Jan; 259(1-2):75-85. PubMed ID: 19850116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) of the cochlear nerve in response to pulsatile electrical stimulation of the cochlea in the rat: effects of stimulation at high rates.
Haenggeli A; Zhang JS; Vischer MW; Pelizzone M; Rouiller EM
Audiology; 1998; 37(6):353-71. PubMed ID: 9888192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Site of cochlear stimulation and its effect on electrically evoked compound action potentials using the MED-EL standard electrode array.
Brill S; Müller J; Hagen R; Möltner A; Brockmeier SJ; Stark T; Helbig S; Maurer J; Zahnert T; Zierhofer C; Nopp P; Anderson I; Strahl S
Biomed Eng Online; 2009 Dec; 8():40. PubMed ID: 20015362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Across-site patterns of electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude-growth functions in multichannel cochlear implant recipients and the effects of the interphase gap.
Schvartz-Leyzac KC; Pfingst BE
Hear Res; 2016 Nov; 341():50-65. PubMed ID: 27521841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Recovery function of electrically evoked compound action potential in implanted children with auditory neuropathy: preliminary results.
Kim JR; Kim LS; Jeong SW; Kim JS; Chung SH
Acta Otolaryngol; 2011 Aug; 131(8):796-801. PubMed ID: 21466261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparing eSRT and eCAP measurements in pediatric MED-EL cochlear implant users.
Kosaner J; Spitzer P; Bayguzina S; Gultekin M; Behar LA
Cochlear Implants Int; 2018 May; 19(3):153-161. PubMed ID: 29291688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Independent component analysis for auditory evoked potentials and cochlear implant artifact estimation.
Castañeda-Villa N; James CJ
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2011 Feb; 58(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 20813628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Insertion trauma and recovery of function after cochlear implantation: Evidence from objective functional measures.
Pfingst BE; Hughes AP; Colesa DJ; Watts MM; Strahl SB; Raphael Y
Hear Res; 2015 Dec; 330(Pt A):98-105. PubMed ID: 26209185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
