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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20727397)

  • 1. Partial tripolar cochlear implant stimulation: Spread of excitation and forward masking in the inferior colliculus.
    Bierer JA; Bierer SM; Middlebrooks JC
    Hear Res; 2010 Dec; 270(1-2):134-42. PubMed ID: 20727397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Topographic spread of inferior colliculus activation in response to acoustic and intracochlear electric stimulation.
    Snyder RL; Bierer JA; Middlebrooks JC
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Sep; 5(3):305-22. PubMed ID: 15492888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Auditory cortical responses to electrical stimulation of the inferior colliculus: implications for an auditory midbrain implant.
    Lim HH; Anderson DJ
    J Neurophysiol; 2006 Sep; 96(3):975-88. PubMed ID: 16723413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity.
    Snyder RL; Middlebrooks JC; Bonham BH
    Hear Res; 2008 Jan; 235(1-2):23-38. PubMed ID: 18037252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
    Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
    Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Monopolar intracochlear pulse trains selectively activate the inferior colliculus.
    Schoenecker MC; Bonham BH; Stakhovskaya OA; Snyder RL; Leake PA
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2012 Oct; 13(5):655-72. PubMed ID: 22722899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing.
    Nelson DA; Donaldson GS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Dec; 112(6):2932-47. PubMed ID: 12509014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Place specificity of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implants: the influence of residual masking.
    Fielden CA; Kluk K; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4109-23. PubMed ID: 23742363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Exploring the Use of Interleaved Stimuli to Measure Cochlear-Implant Excitation Patterns.
    Guérit F; Middlebrooks JC; Gransier R; Richardson ML; Wouters J; Carlyon RP
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2024 Apr; 25(2):201-213. PubMed ID: 38459245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Electrical cochlear stimulation in the deaf cat: comparisons between psychophysical and central auditory neuronal thresholds.
    Beitel RE; Snyder RL; Schreiner CE; Raggio MW; Leake PA
    J Neurophysiol; 2000 Apr; 83(4):2145-62. PubMed ID: 10758124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Neuronal responses in cat inferior colliculus to combined acoustic and electric stimulation.
    Vollmer M; Hartmann R; Tillein J
    Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 2010; 67():61-69. PubMed ID: 19955722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems.
    Boëx C; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Oct; 114(4 Pt 1):2058-65. PubMed ID: 14587605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients.
    Chatterjee M; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Mar; 7(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 16270234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reduction in spread of excitation from current focusing at multiple cochlear locations in cochlear implant users.
    Padilla M; Landsberger DM
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():98-107. PubMed ID: 26778546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.