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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25250960)

  • 21. Effects of interaural pitch matching and auditory image centering on binaural sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
    Kan A; Litovsky RY; Goupell MJ
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):e62-8. PubMed ID: 25565660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A longitudinal study of electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance in children using the Clarion cochlear implant.
    Henkin Y; Kaplan-Neeman R; Kronenberg J; Migirov L; Hildesheimer M; Muchnik C
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 126(6):581-6. PubMed ID: 16720441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Using current steering to increase spectral resolution in CII and HiRes 90K users.
    Koch DB; Downing M; Osberger MJ; Litvak L
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2 Suppl):38S-41S. PubMed ID: 17496643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients.
    Hughes ML; Abbas PJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Mar; 119(3):1527-37. PubMed ID: 16583898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Place dependent stimulation rates improve pitch perception in cochlear implantees with single-sided deafness.
    Rader T; Döge J; Adel Y; Weissgerber T; Baumann U
    Hear Res; 2016 Sep; 339():94-103. PubMed ID: 27374479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Combined neural and behavioural measures of temporal pitch perception in cochlear implant users.
    Carlyon RP; Deeks JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Nov; 138(5):2885-905. PubMed ID: 26627764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays.
    Hughes ML; Abbas PJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Mar; 119(3):1538-47. PubMed ID: 16583899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Loudness and pitch perception using Dynamically Compensated Virtual Channels.
    Nogueira W; Litvak LM; Landsberger DM; Büchner A
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():223-234. PubMed ID: 27939418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users.
    Hughes ML; Vander Werff KR; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ; Kelsay DM; Teagle HF; Lowder MW
    Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):471-86. PubMed ID: 11770670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Postimplantation changes of electrophysiological parameters in patients with cochlear implants.
    Molisz A; Zarowski A; Vermeiren A; Theunen T; De Coninck L; Siebert J; Offeciers EF
    Audiol Neurootol; 2015; 20(4):222-8. PubMed ID: 25969138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effects of stimulation level and electrode pairing on the binaural interaction component of the electrically evoked auditory brain stem response.
    He S; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):457-70. PubMed ID: 20418771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Cochlear implant place psychophysics 1. Pitch estimation with deeply inserted electrodes.
    Cohen LT; Busby PA; Whitford LA; Clark GM
    Audiol Neurootol; 1996; 1(5):265-77. PubMed ID: 9390808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of parameter manipulations on spread of excitation measured with electrically-evoked compound action potentials.
    van der Beek FB; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 51(6):465-74. PubMed ID: 22315988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study.
    Mens LH; Berenstein CK
    Otol Neurotol; 2005 Sep; 26(5):957-64. PubMed ID: 16151343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Preliminary results of the relationship between the binaural interaction component of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response and interaural pitch comparisons in bilateral cochlear implant recipients.
    He S; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(1):57-68. PubMed ID: 21730858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Effectiveness of Phantom Stimulation in Shifting the Pitch Percept in Cochlear Implant Users.
    de Jong MAM; Briaire JJ; Biesheuvel JD; Snel-Bongers J; Böhringer S; Timp GRFM; Frijns JHM
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1258-1269. PubMed ID: 31977727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis.
    Busby PA; Whitford LA; Blamey PJ; Richardson LM; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 May; 95(5 Pt 1):2658-69. PubMed ID: 8207139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Excitation Patterns of Standard and Steered Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants.
    Wu CC; Luo X
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Apr; 17(2):145-58. PubMed ID: 26691160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.