203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21168479)
1. Relationship between gap detection thresholds and loudness in cochlear-implant users.
Garadat SN; Pfingst BE
Hear Res; 2011 May; 275(1-2):130-8. PubMed ID: 21168479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Behavioral Measures of Temporal Processing and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.
Blankenship C; Zhang F; Keith R
J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Oct; 27(9):701-713. PubMed ID: 27718347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Relationships Between the Auditory Nerve's Ability to Recover From Neural Adaptation, Cortical Encoding of and Perceptual Sensitivity to Within-channel Temporal Gaps in Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Users.
He S; Yuan Y; Skidmore J
Ear Hear; 2023 Sep-Oct 01; 44(5):1202-1211. PubMed ID: 37018083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients.
Potts LG; Skinner MW; Gotter BD; Strube MJ; Brenner CA
Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):495-511. PubMed ID: 17609612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants.
Pfingst BE; Xu L
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Mar; 5(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 14605920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and loudness estimates for the stimuli used to program the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant.
Jeon EK; Brown CJ; Etler CP; O'Brien S; Chiou LK; Abbas PJ
J Am Acad Audiol; 2010 Jan; 21(1):16-27. PubMed ID: 20085196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Modulation frequency discrimination with single and multiple channels in cochlear implant users.
Galvin JJ; Oba S; Başkent D; Fu QJ
Hear Res; 2015 Jun; 324():7-18. PubMed ID: 25746914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. On the Effect of High Stimulation Rates on Temporal Loudness Integration in Cochlear Implant Users.
Obando-Leitón M; Dietze A; Castañeda González CM; Saeedi A; Karg S; Hemmert W
Trends Hear; 2023; 27():23312165231207229. PubMed ID: 37936420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The Electrically Evoked Auditory Change Complex Evoked by Temporal Gaps Using Cochlear Implants or Auditory Brainstem Implants in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency.
He S; McFayden TC; Shahsavarani BS; Teagle HFB; Ewend M; Henderson L; Buchman CA
Ear Hear; 2018; 39(3):482-494. PubMed ID: 28968281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Relationships between electrically evoked potentials and loudness growth in bilateral cochlear implant users.
Kirby B; Brown C; Abbas P; Etler C; O'Brien S
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):389-98. PubMed ID: 22246138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effects of electrode configuration on cochlear implant modulation detection thresholds.
Pfingst BE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3908-15. PubMed ID: 21682413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effects of site-specific level adjustments on speech recognition with cochlear implants.
Zhou N; Pfingst BE
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(1):30-40. PubMed ID: 24225651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of phase duration and pulse rate on loudness and pitch percepts in the first auditory midbrain implant patients: Comparison to cochlear implant and auditory brainstem implant results.
Lim HH; Lenarz T; Joseph G; Battmer RD; Patrick JF; Lenarz M
Neuroscience; 2008 Jun; 154(1):370-80. PubMed ID: 18384971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Unilateral cochlear implant use promotes normal-like loudness perception in adolescents with childhood deafness.
Steel MM; Abbasalipour P; Salloum CA; Hasek D; Papsin BC; Gordon KA
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):e291-301. PubMed ID: 25072236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration.
Fu QJ
Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 202(1-2):55-62. PubMed ID: 15811699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.
Fu QJ; Shannon RV
Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):227-35. PubMed ID: 10890731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Polarity effects on place pitch and loudness for three cochlear-implant designs and at different cochlear sites.
Carlyon RP; Deeks JM; Macherey O
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jul; 134(1):503-9. PubMed ID: 23862825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
