232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21605648)
1. Cochlear infrastructure for electrical hearing.
Pfingst BE; Bowling SA; Colesa DJ; Garadat SN; Raphael Y; Shibata SB; Strahl SB; Su GL; Zhou N
Hear Res; 2011 Nov; 281(1-2):65-73. PubMed ID: 21605648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Importance of cochlear health for implant function.
Pfingst BE; Zhou N; Colesa DJ; Watts MM; Strahl SB; Garadat SN; Schvartz-Leyzac KC; Budenz CL; Raphael Y; Zwolan TA
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():77-88. PubMed ID: 25261772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Nerve maintenance and regeneration in the damaged cochlea.
Shibata SB; Budenz CL; Bowling SA; Pfingst BE; Raphael Y
Hear Res; 2011 Nov; 281(1-2):56-64. PubMed ID: 21596129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The multi-channel cochlear implant: multi-disciplinary development of electrical stimulation of the cochlea and the resulting clinical benefit.
Clark GM
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():4-13. PubMed ID: 25159273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The early days of the multi channel cochlear implant: efforts and achievement in France.
Chouard CH
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():47-51. PubMed ID: 25499127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs.
Dhanasingh A; Jolly C
Hear Res; 2017 Dec; 356():93-103. PubMed ID: 29102129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation.
Zhu Z; Tang Q; Zeng FG; Guan T; Ye D
Hear Res; 2012 Jan; 283(1-2):45-58. PubMed ID: 22138630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Predicting the speech reception threshold of cochlear implant listeners using an envelope-correlation based measure.
Yousefian N; Loizou PC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3399-405. PubMed ID: 23145620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.
Srinivasan AG; Padilla M; Shannon RV; Landsberger DM
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():29-36. PubMed ID: 23467170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation.
Nadol JB
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 1997 Sep; 117(3 Pt 1):220-8. PubMed ID: 9334769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Delayed loss of hearing after hearing preservation cochlear implantation: Human temporal bone pathology and implications for etiology.
Quesnel AM; Nakajima HH; Rosowski JJ; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Nadol JB
Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():225-234. PubMed ID: 26341474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Soft cochlear implantation: rationale for the surgical approach.
Friedland DR; Runge-Samuelson C
Trends Amplif; 2009 Jun; 13(2):124-38. PubMed ID: 19447766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.
Zhou N; Pfingst BE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):994-1008. PubMed ID: 22894220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Perceptual changes in place of stimulation with long cochlear implant electrode arrays.
Landsberger DM; Mertens G; Punte AK; Van De Heyning P
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Feb; 135(2):EL75-81. PubMed ID: 25234918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Perceptual changes with monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation.
Klawitter S; Landsberger DM; Büchner A; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2018 Mar; 359():64-75. PubMed ID: 29325874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Electroacoustic Stimulation.
Li C; Kuhlmey M; Kim AH
Otolaryngol Clin North Am; 2019 Apr; 52(2):311-322. PubMed ID: 30617011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Acoustic, aerodynamic, and perceptual analyses of the voice of cochlear-implanted children.
Guerrero Lopez HA; Mondain M; Amy de la Bretèque B; Serrafero P; Trottier C; Barkat-Defradas M
J Voice; 2013 Jul; 27(4):523.e1-17. PubMed ID: 23809572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
