157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23282338)
1. Refractory effects of the N1 event-related potential in experienced cochlear implant patients.
Cowper-Smith CD; Green J; Maessen H; Bance M; Newman AJ
Int J Audiol; 2013 Feb; 52(2):104-12. PubMed ID: 23282338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comodulation masking release induced by controlled electrical stimulation of auditory nerve fibers.
Zirn S; Hempel JM; Schuster M; Hemmert W
Hear Res; 2013 Feb; 296():60-6. PubMed ID: 23220120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The adaptive pattern of the late auditory evoked potential elicited by repeated stimuli in cochlear implant users.
Zhang F; Anderson J; Samy R; Houston L
Int J Audiol; 2010 Apr; 49(4):277-85. PubMed ID: 20151878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of evoked potentials to dyadic tones after cochlear implantation.
Sandmann P; Eichele T; Buechler M; Debener S; Jäncke L; Dillier N; Hugdahl K; Meyer M
Brain; 2009 Jul; 132(Pt 7):1967-79. PubMed ID: 19293240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Changes in visually and auditory attended audiovisual speech processing in cochlear implant users: A longitudinal ERP study.
Weglage A; Layer N; Meister H; Müller V; Lang-Roth R; Walger M; Sandmann P
Hear Res; 2024 Jun; 447():109023. PubMed ID: 38733710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant listeners via single electrode stimulation in relation to speech perception.
Liebscher T; Alberter K; Hoppe U
Int J Audiol; 2018 Dec; 57(12):933-940. PubMed ID: 30295156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials Recorded From Nucleus Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.
Brown CJ; Jeon EK; Chiou LK; Kirby B; Karsten SA; Turner CW; Abbas PJ
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):723-32. PubMed ID: 26295607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Experiences of the use of FOX, an intelligent agent, for programming cochlear implant sound processors in new users.
Vaerenberg B; Govaerts PJ; de Ceulaer G; Daemers K; Schauwers K
Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):50-8. PubMed ID: 21091083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cortical auditory evoked potentials as an objective measure of behavioral thresholds in cochlear implant users.
Visram AS; Innes-Brown H; El-Deredy W; McKay CM
Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():35-42. PubMed ID: 25959269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effects of envelope shape on interaural envelope delay sensitivity in acoustic and electric hearing.
Laback B; Zimmermann I; Majdak P; Baumgartner WD; Pok SM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1515-29. PubMed ID: 21895091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The relationship between cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) detection and estimated audibility in infants with sensorineural hearing loss.
Chang HW; Dillon H; Carter L; van Dun B; Young ST
Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):663-70. PubMed ID: 22873205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Characterizing responses from auditory cortex in young people with several years of cochlear implant experience.
Gordon KA; Tanaka S; Wong DD; Papsin BC
Clin Neurophysiol; 2008 Oct; 119(10):2347-62. PubMed ID: 18752993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Preferred delay and phase-frequency response of open-canal hearing aids with music at low insertion gain.
Zakis JA; Fulton B; Steele BR
Int J Audiol; 2012 Dec; 51(12):906-13. PubMed ID: 23025794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Enhanced audio-visual interactions in the auditory cortex of elderly cochlear-implant users.
Schierholz I; Finke M; Schulte S; Hauthal N; Kantzke C; Rach S; Büchner A; Dengler R; Sandmann P
Hear Res; 2015 Oct; 328():133-47. PubMed ID: 26302946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Auditory cortical responses evoked by pure tones in healthy and sensorineural hearing loss subjects: functional MRI and magnetoencephalography.
Zhang YT; Geng ZJ; Zhang Q; Li W; Zhang J
Chin Med J (Engl); 2006 Sep; 119(18):1548-54. PubMed ID: 16996009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Plasticity of tonotopic maps in humans: influence of hearing loss, hearing aids and cochlear implants.
Thai-Van H; Veuillet E; Norena A; Guiraud J; Collet L
Acta Otolaryngol; 2010 Mar; 130(3):333-7. PubMed ID: 19845491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effect of interaural differences in envelope shape on the perceived location of sounds (L).
Francart T; Lenssen A; Wouters J
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):611-4. PubMed ID: 22894182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users.
Kelly AS; Purdy SC; Thorne PR
Clin Neurophysiol; 2005 Jun; 116(6):1235-46. PubMed ID: 15978485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
