268 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22894182)
41. The Relationship Between Interaural Insertion-Depth Differences, Scalar Location, and Interaural Time-Difference Processing in Adult Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
Cleary M; Bernstein JGW; Stakhovskaya OA; Noble J; Kolberg E; Jensen KK; Hoa M; Kim HJ; Goupell MJ
Trends Hear; 2022; 26():23312165221129165. PubMed ID: 36379607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Bilateral cochlear implants controlled by a single speech processor.
Lawson DT; Wilson BS; Zerbi M; van den Honert C; Finley CC; Farmer JC; McElveen JT; Roush PA
Am J Otol; 1998 Nov; 19(6):758-61. PubMed ID: 9831150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Horizontal-plane localization of noise and speech signals by postlingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants.
Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Ricketts TA; Labadie RF; Haynes DS
Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):524-41. PubMed ID: 17609614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Sound localization and binaural hearing in children with a hearing aid and a cochlear implant.
Beijen J; Snik AF; Straatman LV; Mylanus EA; Mens LH
Audiol Neurootol; 2010; 15(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 19451708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on binaural fusion and lateralization in bilateral cochlear-implant users.
Kan A; Stoelb C; Litovsky RY; Goupell MJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):2923-36. PubMed ID: 24116428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Investigating interaural frequency-place mismatches via bimodal vowel integration.
Guérit F; Santurette S; Chalupper J; Dau T
Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Comparison of the fine structure processing (FSP) strategy and the CIS strategy used in the MED-EL cochlear implant system: speech intelligibility and music sound quality.
Magnusson L
Int J Audiol; 2011 Apr; 50(4):279-87. PubMed ID: 21190508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Neural and behavioral sensitivity to interaural time differences using amplitude modulated tones with mismatched carrier frequencies.
Blanks DA; Roberts JM; Buss E; Hall JW; Fitzpatrick DC
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2007 Sep; 8(3):393-408. PubMed ID: 17657543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Benefit from bimodal hearing in a group of prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users.
Berrettini S; Passetti S; Giannarelli M; Forli F
Am J Otolaryngol; 2010; 31(5):332-8. PubMed ID: 20015774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Sensitivity to interaural envelope correlation changes in bilateral cochlear-implant users.
Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jan; 137(1):335-49. PubMed ID: 25618064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
Galvin KL; Mok M; Dowell RC
Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):470-82. PubMed ID: 17609610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Temporal interaction in electrical hearing elucidates auditory nerve dynamics in humans.
Karg SA; Lackner C; Hemmert W
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():10-8. PubMed ID: 23396273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Binaural hearing in children using Gaussian enveloped and transposed tones.
Ehlers E; Kan A; Winn MB; Stoelb C; Litovsky RY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Apr; 139(4):1724. PubMed ID: 27106319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. Standard cochlear implantation of adults with residual low-frequency hearing: implications for combined electro-acoustic stimulation.
Novak MA; Black JM; Koch DB
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):609-14. PubMed ID: 17514064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Speech perception performance as a function of stimulus pulse rate and processing strategy preference for the Cochlear Nucleus CI24RE device: relation to perceptual threshold and loudness comfort profiles.
Battmer RD; Dillier N; Lai WK; Begall K; Leypon EE; González JC; Manrique M; Morera C; Müller-Deile J; Wesarg T; Zarowski A; Killian MJ; von Wallenberg E; Smoorenburg GF
Int J Audiol; 2010 Sep; 49(9):657-66. PubMed ID: 20583945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Advantages from bilateral hearing in speech perception in noise with simulated cochlear implants and residual acoustic hearing.
Schoof T; Green T; Faulkner A; Rosen S
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Feb; 133(2):1017-30. PubMed ID: 23363118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Effect of multi-electrode configuration on sensitivity to interaural timing differences in bilateral cochlear-implant users.
Kan A; Jones HG; Litovsky RY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):3826-33. PubMed ID: 26723337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Transmission of Binaural Cues by Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Examining the Impacts of Bilaterally Independent Spectral Peak-Picking, Pulse Timing, and Compression.
Gray WO; Mayo PG; Goupell MJ; Brown AD
Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211030411. PubMed ID: 34293981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Channel Interaction and Current Level Affect Across-Electrode Integration of Interaural Time Differences in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
Egger K; Majdak P; Laback B
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Feb; 17(1):55-67. PubMed ID: 26377826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
