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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22367093)

  • 21. Effect of inter-phase gap on the sensitivity of cochlear implant users to electrical stimulation.
    Carlyon RP; van Wieringen A; Deeks JM; Long CJ; Lyzenga J; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2005 Jul; 205(1-2):210-24. PubMed ID: 15953530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Assessing auditory nerve condition by tone decay in deaf subjects with a cochlear implant.
    Wasmann JA; van Eijl RHM; Versnel H; van Zanten GA
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):864-871. PubMed ID: 30261773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Auditory temporal acuity probed with cochlear implant stimulation and cortical recording.
    Kirby AE; Middlebrooks JC
    J Neurophysiol; 2010 Jan; 103(1):531-42. PubMed ID: 19923242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effects of pulse rate and electrode array design on intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users.
    Kreft HA; Donaldson GS; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Oct; 116(4 Pt 1):2258-68. PubMed ID: 15532657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The relation between auditory-nerve temporal responses and perceptual rate integration in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Baudhuin JL; Goehring JL
    Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 316():44-56. PubMed ID: 25093283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Detection and rate discrimination of amplitude modulation in electrical hearing.
    Chatterjee M; Oberzut C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1567-80. PubMed ID: 21895095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Frequency modulation detection with simultaneous amplitude modulation by cochlear implant users.
    Luo X; Fu QJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1046-54. PubMed ID: 17672652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Effect of stimulus level on the temporal response properties of the auditory nerve in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Laurello SA
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():116-129. PubMed ID: 28633960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effects of amplitude compression on first- and second-order modulation detection thresholds in cochlear implant listeners.
    Lorenzi C; Sibellas J; Füllgrabe C; Gallégo S; Fugain C; Meyer B
    Int J Audiol; 2004 May; 43(5):264-70. PubMed ID: 15357409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effects of high-rate pulse trains on electrode discrimination in cochlear implant users.
    Runge-Samuelson CL
    Trends Amplif; 2009 Jun; 13(2):76-86. PubMed ID: 19447763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Unanesthetized auditory cortex exhibits multiple codes for gaps in cochlear implant pulse trains.
    Kirby AE; Middlebrooks JC
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2012 Feb; 13(1):67-80. PubMed ID: 21969022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus.
    Shannon RV; Otto SR
    Hear Res; 1990 Aug; 47(1-2):159-68. PubMed ID: 2228792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users.
    Galvin JJ; Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2009 Apr; 250(1-2):46-54. PubMed ID: 19450432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants.
    Pfingst BE; Xu L; Thompson CS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Apr; 121(4):2236-46. PubMed ID: 17471737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparisons between neural response imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII bionic ear users with HiResolution sound processing strategies.
    Han DM; Chen XQ; Zhao XT; Kong Y; Li YX; Liu S; Liu B; Mo LY
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jul; 125(7):732-5. PubMed ID: 16012035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effect of Pulse Rate on Loudness Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Azadpour M; McKay CM; Svirsky MA
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Jun; 19(3):287-299. PubMed ID: 29532190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Perception of stochastic envelopes by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Gomersall PA; Turner RE; Baguley DM; Deeks JM; Gockel HE; Carlyon RP
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():8-24. PubMed ID: 26706708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.