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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25250960)

  • 1. Effect of electrode impedance on spread of excitation and pitch perception using electrically coupled "dual-electrode" stimulation.
    Hughes ML; Baudhuin JL; Goehring JL
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(2):e50-6. PubMed ID: 25250960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients.
    Saoji AA; Litvak LM; Hughes ML
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):559-67. PubMed ID: 19617837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and physiological spread-of-excitation using Cochlear's dual-electrode mode.
    Goehring JL; Neff DL; Baudhuin JL; Hughes ML
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):715-27. PubMed ID: 25096106
    [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. Electrically evoked compound action potential measures for virtual channels versus physical electrodes.
    Hughes ML; Goulson AM
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):323-30. PubMed ID: 21187752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dual electrode stimulation using the nucleus CI24RE cochlear implant: electrode impedance and pitch ranking studies.
    Busby PA; Plant KL
    Ear Hear; 2005 Oct; 26(5):504-11. PubMed ID: 16230899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Stille LJ
    Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):679-92. PubMed ID: 20505513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. ECAP spread of excitation with virtual channels and physical electrodes.
    Hughes ML; Stille LJ; Baudhuin JL; Goehring JL
    Hear Res; 2013 Dec; 306():93-103. PubMed ID: 24095669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Dynamic current steering with phantom electrode in cochlear implants.
    Luo X; Garrett C
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107949. PubMed ID: 32200300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L).
    Donaldson GS; Kreft HA; Litvak L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Aug; 118(2):623-6. PubMed ID: 16158620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. A re-evaluation of the relation between physiological channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Nov; 124(5):2711-4. PubMed ID: 19045758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Imaging of electrode position in relation to electrode functioning after cochlear implantation.
    van Wermeskerken GK; van Olphen AF; Graamans K
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2009 Oct; 266(10):1527-31. PubMed ID: 19308437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Use of "phantom electrode" technique to extend the range of pitches available through a cochlear implant.
    Saoji AA; Litvak LM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):693-701. PubMed ID: 20467321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear-Implant Users: Channel Independence in Apical Cochlear Regions.
    Griessner A; Schatzer R; Steixner V; Rajan GP; Zierhofer C; Távora-Vieira D
    Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211020645. PubMed ID: 34041983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of Place-versus-Pitch Mismatch between a Perimodiolar and Lateral Wall Cochlear Implant Electrode Array in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant.
    Peters JPM; Bennink E; van Zanten GA
    Audiol Neurootol; 2019; 24(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 30995658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.