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)

  • 41. The intensity-pitch relation revisited: monopolar versus bipolar cochlear stimulation.
    Arnoldner C; Riss D; Kaider A; Mair A; Wagenblast J; Baumgartner WD; Gstöttner W; Hamzavi JS
    Laryngoscope; 2008 Sep; 118(9):1630-6. PubMed ID: 18545213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Comparison of electrode impedance measures between a dexamethasone-eluting and standard Cochlear™ Contour Advance® electrode in adult cochlear implant recipients.
    Briggs R; O 'Leary S; Birman C; Plant K; English R; Dawson P; Risi F; Gavrilis J; Needham K; Cowan R
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107924. PubMed ID: 32143111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Investigating perceptual features of electrode stimulation via a multidimensional scaling paradigm.
    Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Nov; 108(5 Pt 1):2353-65. PubMed ID: 11108376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Current steering with partial tripolar stimulation mode in cochlear implants.
    Wu CC; Luo X
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2013 Apr; 14(2):213-31. PubMed ID: 23250685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Evaluation of focused multipolar stimulation for cochlear implants: a preclinical safety study.
    Shepherd RK; Wise AK; Enke YL; Carter PM; Fallon JB
    J Neural Eng; 2017 Aug; 14(4):046020. PubMed ID: 28607224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Symmetric Electrode Spanning Narrows the Excitation Patterns of Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants.
    Luo X; Wu CC
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Dec; 17(6):609-619. PubMed ID: 27562804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Differences between electrode-assigned frequencies and cochlear implant recipient pitch perception.
    Nardo WD; Cantore I; Cianfrone F; Melillo P; Fetoni AR; Paludetti G
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2007 Apr; 127(4):370-7. PubMed ID: 17453456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Large vestibular aqueduct syndrome: Impedance changes over time with different cochlear implant electrode arrays.
    Powell HR; Birman CS
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015; 16(6):326-30. PubMed ID: 26098963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Influence of widening electrode separation on current steering performance.
    Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; Vanpoucke FJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(2):221-9. PubMed ID: 21063206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Simultaneous and non-simultaneous dual electrode stimulation in cochlear implants: evidence for two neural response modalities.
    Frijns JH; Kalkman RK; Vanpoucke FJ; Bongers JS; Briaire JJ
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2009 Apr; 129(4):433-9. PubMed ID: 19117170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. What can stimulus polarity and interphase gap tell us about auditory nerve function in cochlear-implant recipients?
    Hughes ML; Choi S; Glickman E
    Hear Res; 2018 Mar; 359():50-63. PubMed ID: 29307495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Effects of extreme tonotopic mismatches between bilateral cochlear implants on electric pitch perception: a case study.
    Reiss LA; Lowder MW; Karsten SA; Turner CW; Gantz BJ
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):536-40. PubMed ID: 21307775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Impedance and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) drop within 24 hours after cochlear implantation.
    Chen JK; Chuang AY; Sprinzl GM; Tung TH; Li LP
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(8):e71929. PubMed ID: 23991008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Threshold levels of dual electrode stimulation in cochlear implants.
    Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; van der Veen EH; Kalkman RK; Frijns JH
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2013 Oct; 14(5):781-90. PubMed ID: 23695303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Pitch estimation of a deeply inserted cochlear implant electrode.
    Deman PR; van Dijk B; Offeciers FE; Govaerts PJ
    Int J Audiol; 2004 Jun; 43(6):363-8. PubMed ID: 15457819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Comparison of Interaural Electrode Pairing Methods for Bilateral Cochlear Implants.
    Hu H; Dietz M
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26631108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Multiple-electrode cochlear implant for profound or total hearing loss: a review.
    Clark GM; Tong YC
    Med J Aust; 1981 Apr; 1(8):428-9. PubMed ID: 7019645
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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