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 *

209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21610498)

  • 1. Intensity coding in electric hearing: effects of electrode configurations and stimulation waveforms.
    Chua TE; Bachman M; Zeng FG
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(6):679-89. PubMed ID: 21610498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Variations in carrier pulse rate and the perception of amplitude modulation in cochlear implant users.
    Green T; Faulkner A; Rosen S
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):221-30. PubMed ID: 22367093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 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. Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study.
    Mens LH; Berenstein CK
    Otol Neurotol; 2005 Sep; 26(5):957-64. PubMed ID: 16151343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Dynamic current steering with phantom electrode in cochlear implants.
    Luo X; Garrett C
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107949. PubMed ID: 32200300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Intensity discrimination and increment detection in cochlear-implant users.
    Wojtczak M; Donaldson GS; Viemeister NF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Jul; 114(1):396-407. PubMed ID: 12880051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of pulse shape on pitch sensitivity of cochlear implant users.
    Arslan NO; Luo X
    Hear Res; 2024 Sep; 450():109075. PubMed ID: 38986164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Electrical field imaging as a means to predict the loudness of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implant patients.
    Berenstein CK; Vanpoucke FJ; Mulder JJ; Mens LH
    Hear Res; 2010 Dec; 270(1-2):28-38. PubMed ID: 20946945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Effectiveness of Phantom Stimulation in Shifting the Pitch Percept in Cochlear Implant Users.
    de Jong MAM; Briaire JJ; Biesheuvel JD; Snel-Bongers J; Böhringer S; Timp GRFM; Frijns JHM
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1258-1269. PubMed ID: 31977727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Pulse-rate discrimination deficit in cochlear implant users: is the upper limit of pitch peripheral or central?
    Zhou N; Mathews J; Dong L
    Hear Res; 2019 Jan; 371():1-10. PubMed ID: 30423498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Effects of interaural pitch matching and auditory image centering on binaural sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
    Kan A; Litovsky RY; Goupell MJ
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):e62-8. PubMed ID: 25565660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Dynamic Current Focusing: A Novel Approach to Loudness Coding in Cochlear Implants.
    de Jong MAM; Briaire JJ; Frijns JHM
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):34-44. PubMed ID: 29742542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.