349 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22733121)
1. New parallel stimulation strategies revisited: effect of synchronous multi electrode stimulation on rate discrimination in cochlear implant users.
Bahmer A; Baumann U
Cochlear Implants Int; 2013 Jun; 14(3):142-9. PubMed ID: 22733121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch.
Schatzer R; Vermeire K; Visser D; Krenmayr A; Kals M; Voormolen M; Van de Heyning P; Zierhofer C
Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():26-35. PubMed ID: 24252455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.
Busby PA; Battmer RD; Pesch J
Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):853-64. PubMed ID: 18633324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.
Boëx C; Baud L; Cosendai G; Sigrist A; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 7(2):110-24. PubMed ID: 16450213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Stimulating on multiple electrodes can improve temporal pitch perception.
Penninger RT; Kludt E; Büchner A; Nogueira W
Int J Audiol; 2015 Jun; 54(6):376-83. PubMed ID: 25630393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Speech perception with interaction-compensated simultaneous stimulation and long pulse durations in cochlear implant users.
Schatzer R; Koroleva I; Griessner A; Levin S; Kusovkov V; Yanov Y; Zierhofer C
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():99-106. PubMed ID: 25457654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Qualities of Single Electrode Stimulation as a Function of Rate and Place of Stimulation with a Cochlear Implant.
Landsberger DM; Vermeire K; Claes A; Van Rompaey V; Van de Heyning P
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):e149-59. PubMed ID: 26583480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rate discrimination at low pulse rates in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners: Influence of intracochlear stimulation site.
Stahl P; Macherey O; Meunier S; Roman S
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Apr; 139(4):1578. PubMed ID: 27106306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting.
Gani M; Valentini G; Sigrist A; Kós MI; Boëx C
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2007 Mar; 8(1):69-83. PubMed ID: 17216585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise.
Gfeller K; Turner C; Oleson J; Zhang X; Gantz B; Froman R; Olszewski C
Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):412-23. PubMed ID: 17485990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Spread of excitation and channel interaction in single- and dual-electrode cochlear implant stimulation.
Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; Vanpoucke FJ; Frijns JH
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):367-76. PubMed ID: 22048258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cochlear Implant Rate Pitch and Melody Perception as a Function of Place and Number of Electrodes.
Marimuthu V; Swanson BA; Mannell R
Trends Hear; 2016 Apr; 20():. PubMed ID: 27094028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Rate pitch discrimination in cochlear implant users with the use of double pulses and different interpulse intervals.
Pieper SH; Bahmer A
Cochlear Implants Int; 2019 Nov; 20(6):312-323. PubMed ID: 31448701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.
Stohl JS; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Experimental assessment of polyphonic tones with cochlear implants.
Penninger RT; Limb CJ; Vermeire K; Leman M; Dhooge I
Otol Neurotol; 2013 Sep; 34(7):1267-71. PubMed ID: 23921943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Pitch adaptation patterns in bimodal cochlear implant users: over time and after experience.
Reiss LA; Ito RA; Eggleston JL; Liao S; Becker JJ; Lakin CE; Warren FM; McMenomey SO
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(2):e23-34. PubMed ID: 25319401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function.
Baumann U; Nobbe A
Hear Res; 2006 Mar; 213(1-2):34-42. PubMed ID: 16442249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
