These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

340 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20558202)

  • 41. Electrically evoked auditory steady-state responses in Guinea pigs.
    Jeng FC; Abbas PJ; Brown CJ; Miller CA; Nourski KV; Robinson BK
    Audiol Neurootol; 2007; 12(2):101-12. PubMed ID: 17264473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Measuring the refractoriness of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve.
    Morsnowski A; Charasse B; Collet L; Killian M; Müller-Deile J
    Audiol Neurootol; 2006; 11(6):389-402. PubMed ID: 17008774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Comparisons between neural response imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII bionic ear users with HiResolution sound processing strategies.
    Han DM; Chen XQ; Zhao XT; Kong Y; Li YX; Liu S; Liu B; Mo LY
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jul; 125(7):732-5. PubMed ID: 16012035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Facilitation properties in electrically evoked compound action potentials depending on spatial location and on threshold.
    Dambon J; Mewes A; Beyer A; Dambon J; Ambrosch P; Hey M
    Hear Res; 2023 Oct; 438():108858. PubMed ID: 37556897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Stimulus level effects on neural excitation and eCAP amplitude.
    Westen AA; Dekker DM; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
    Hear Res; 2011 Oct; 280(1-2):166-76. PubMed ID: 21664959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Investigating the association of electrically-evoked compound action potential thresholds with inner-ear dimensions in pediatric cochlear implantation.
    Söderqvist S; Sivonen V; Lamminmäki S; Ylönen J; Markkola A; Sinkkonen ST
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2022 Jul; 158():111160. PubMed ID: 35544967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Response of the auditory nerve to sinusoidal electrical stimulation: effects of high-rate pulse trains.
    Runge-Samuelson CL; Abbas PJ; Rubinstein JT; Miller CA; Robinson BK
    Hear Res; 2004 Aug; 194(1-2):1-13. PubMed ID: 15276671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. [Effect of intravenous injection of aspirin on the cochlea].
    Kumagai M
    Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi; 1992 Mar; 67(2):216-33. PubMed ID: 1597302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. [Site of prelingual cochlear stimulation and its effect on electrically evoked compound action potentials and refractory using the Nucleus 24 standard].
    Ma RY; Li W; Jiang XJ
    Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2016 Dec; 30(23):1854-1858. PubMed ID: 29798012
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. [The intraoperative application of neural response telemetry with the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant].
    Yang H; Tang J; Cao K; Zhu X; Wang Y; Pan T
    Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi; 2001 Oct; 36(5):352-6. PubMed ID: 12761943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. An improved masker-probe method for stimulus artifact reduction in electrically evoked compound action potentials.
    Alvarez I; de la Torre A; Sainz M; Roldan C; Schoesser H; Spitzer P
    J Neurosci Methods; 2008 Oct; 175(1):143-7. PubMed ID: 18771694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. A Comparison of Alternating Polarity and Forward Masking Artifact-Reduction Methods to Resolve the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.
    Baudhuin JL; Hughes ML; Goehring JL
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(4):e247-55. PubMed ID: 26928001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Multistage Nonlinear Optimization to Recover Neural Activation Patterns From Evoked Compound Action Potentials of Cochlear Implant Users.
    Cosentino S; Gaudrain E; Deeks JM; Carlyon RP
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2016 Apr; 63(4):833-40. PubMed ID: 26353359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Recovery characteristics of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve in deafened guinea pigs: relation to neuronal status.
    Ramekers D; Versnel H; Strahl SB; Klis SF; Grolman W
    Hear Res; 2015 Mar; 321():12-24. PubMed ID: 25582354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. A new stimulation strategy for recording electrical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant patients.
    Hervé T; Truy E; Durupt I; Collet L
    Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1996 Sep; 100(5):472-8. PubMed ID: 8893666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Unravelling the temporal properties of human eCAPs through an iterative deconvolution model.
    Dong Y; Briaire JJ; Biesheuvel JD; Stronks HC; Frijns JHM
    Hear Res; 2020 Sep; 395():108037. PubMed ID: 32827881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Comparison of automated and traditional ECAP recording approaches in clinical practice.
    Estienne P; Scaglia A; Kontides A; Lauss K; Schwarz K; Arauz SL
    Int J Audiol; 2022 Jul; 61(7):583-591. PubMed ID: 34187279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.