380 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21178633)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels With Relatively Poor Electrode-Neuron Interfaces Using the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.
Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(4):961-973. PubMed ID: 31972772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users I: effects of stimulus current level and electrode site on the electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 response.
Firszt JB; Chambers RD; Kraus And N; Reeder RM
Ear Hear; 2002 Dec; 23(6):502-15. PubMed ID: 12476088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration.
Bierer JA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Mar; 121(3):1642-53. PubMed ID: 17407901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children.
Gordon KA; Papsin BC; Harrison RV
Ear Hear; 2004 Oct; 25(5):447-63. PubMed ID: 15599192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Correlation between electrical auditory brainstem response and perceptual thresholds in Digisonic cochlear implant users.
Truy E; Gallego S; Chanal JM; Collet L; Morgon A
Laryngoscope; 1998 Apr; 108(4 Pt 1):554-9. PubMed ID: 9546269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. A Cochlear Implant Performance Prognostic Test Based on Electrical Field Interactions Evaluated by eABR (Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses).
Guevara N; Hoen M; Truy E; Gallego S
PLoS One; 2016; 11(5):e0155008. PubMed ID: 27149268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.
DeVries L; Scheperle R; Bierer JA
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Jun; 17(3):237-52. PubMed ID: 26926152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations.
Berenstein CK; Mens LH; Mulder JJ; Vanpoucke FJ
Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):250-60. PubMed ID: 18595189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Extracochlear Stimulation of Electrically Evoked Auditory Brainstem Responses (eABRs) Remains the Preferred Pre-implant Auditory Nerve Function Test in an Assessor-blinded Comparison.
Causon A; O'Driscoll M; Stapleton E; Lloyd S; Freeman S; Munro KJ
Otol Neurotol; 2019 Jan; 40(1):47-55. PubMed ID: 30489452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Electrophysiologic effects of placing cochlear implant electrodes in a perimodiolar position in young children.
Wackym PA; Firszt JB; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Reeder RM; Raulie JC
Laryngoscope; 2004 Jan; 114(1):71-6. PubMed ID: 14709998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: coding of stimulus channel and current level.
Middlebrooks JC; Bierer JA
J Neurophysiol; 2002 Jan; 87(1):493-507. PubMed ID: 11784765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users II: comparison among speech perception, dynamic range, and physiological measures.
Firszt JB; Chambers And RD; Kraus N
Ear Hear; 2002 Dec; 23(6):516-31. PubMed ID: 12476089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A clinical study of electrophysiological correlates of behavioural comfort levels in cochlear implantees.
Raghunandhan S; Ravikumar A; Kameswaran M; Mandke K; Ranjith R
Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 May; 15(3):145-60. PubMed ID: 24606544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Estimating health of the implanted cochlea using psychophysical strength-duration functions and electrode configuration.
Garadat SN; Colesa DJ; Swiderski DL; Raphael Y; Pfingst BE
Hear Res; 2022 Feb; 414():108404. PubMed ID: 34883366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
