246 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24477546)
1. Examining the electro-neural interface of cochlear implant users using psychophysics, CT scans, and speech understanding.
Long CJ; Holden TA; McClelland GH; Parkinson WS; Shelton C; Kelsall DC; Smith ZM
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2014 Apr; 15(2):293-304. PubMed ID: 24477546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.
DeVries L; Scheperle R; Bierer JA
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Jun; 17(3):237-52. PubMed ID: 26926152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Current Focusing to Reduce Channel Interaction for Distant Electrodes in Cochlear Implant Programs.
DeVries L; Arenberg JG
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518813811. PubMed ID: 30488764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Psychophysical Tuning Curves as a Correlate of Electrode Position in Cochlear Implant Listeners.
DeVries L; Arenberg JG
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Oct; 19(5):571-587. PubMed ID: 29869047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.
Bierer JA; Faulkner KF
Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):247-58. PubMed ID: 20090533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Monopolar Detection Thresholds Predict Spatial Selectivity of Neural Excitation in Cochlear Implants: Implications for Speech Recognition.
Zhou N
PLoS One; 2016; 11(10):e0165476. PubMed ID: 27798658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Intracochlear Position of Cochlear Implants Determined Using CT Scanning versus Fitting Levels: Higher Threshold Levels at Basal Turn.
van der Beek FB; Briaire JJ; van der Marel KS; Verbist BM; Frijns JH
Audiol Neurootol; 2016; 21(1):54-67. PubMed ID: 26891130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Relationship between electrode position and temporal modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users: Are close electrodes always better?
Zhou N; Shi X; Dixit O; Firszt JB; Holden TA
Heliyon; 2023 Feb; 9(2):e12467. PubMed ID: 36852047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluating Psychophysical Polarity Sensitivity as an Indirect Estimate of Neural Status in Cochlear Implant Listeners.
Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2019 Aug; 20(4):415-430. PubMed ID: 30949879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The Effect of Electrode Position on Behavioral and Electrophysiologic Measurements in Perimodiolar Cochlear Implants.
Collins A; Foghsgaard S; Druce E; Margani V; Mejia O; O'Leary S
Otol Neurotol; 2024 Mar; 45(3):238-244. PubMed ID: 38238914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Relationship Between Electrode-to-Modiolus Distance and Current Levels for Adults With Cochlear Implants.
Davis TJ; Zhang D; Gifford RH; Dawant BM; Labadie RF; Noble JH
Otol Neurotol; 2016 Jan; 37(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 26649603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Comparison of signal and gap-detection thresholds for focused and broad cochlear implant electrode configurations.
Bierer JA; Deeks JM; Billig AJ; Carlyon RP
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Apr; 16(2):273-84. PubMed ID: 25644786
[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. Cochlear implantation with the nucleus slim straight electrode in subjects with residual low-frequency hearing.
Skarzynski H; Lorens A; Matusiak M; Porowski M; Skarzynski PH; James CJ
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):e33-43. PubMed ID: 24556970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
Boyd PJ
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Stimulation Mode.
Zhou N; Dong L; Hang M
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Feb; 19(1):99-111. PubMed ID: 29086155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.
Plant K; Holden L; Skinner M; Arcaroli J; Whitford L; Law MA; Nel E
Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):381-93. PubMed ID: 17485987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Single-Channel Focused Thresholds Relate to Vowel Identification in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.
Arjmandi MK; Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
Trends Hear; 2022; 26():23312165221095364. PubMed ID: 35505617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
