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)

  • 61. Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Physiological Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implants.
    Spitzer ER; Hughes ML
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Oct; 28(9):786-798. PubMed ID: 28972468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Effect of ECAP-based choice of stimulation rate on speech-perception performance.
    Bournique JL; Hughes ML; Baudhuin JL; Goehring JL
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):437-46. PubMed ID: 23303197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Using evoked potentials to match interaural electrode pairs with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Smith ZM; Delgutte B
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2007 Mar; 8(1):134-51. PubMed ID: 17225976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Intra- and postoperative electrode impedance of the straight and Contour arrays of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: relation to T and C levels.
    van Wermeskerken GK; van Olphen AF; Smoorenburg GF
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Sep; 45(9):537-44. PubMed ID: 17005497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.
    Scheperle RA; Tejani VD; Omtvedt JK; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Oleson JJ; Ozanne MV
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():45-57. PubMed ID: 28432874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects.
    Collins LM; Zwolan TA; Wakefield GH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Jan; 101(1):440-55. PubMed ID: 9000735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. An evidence-based algorithm for intraoperative monitoring during cochlear implantation.
    Cosetti MK; Troob SH; Latzman JM; Shapiro WH; Roland JT; Waltzman SB
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Feb; 33(2):169-76. PubMed ID: 22222576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. 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]  

  • 69. Spatial channel interactions in cochlear implants.
    Tang Q; Benítez R; Zeng FG
    J Neural Eng; 2011 Aug; 8(4):046029. PubMed ID: 21750370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Multicentre investigation on electrically evoked compound action potential and stapedius reflex: how do these objective measures relate to implant programming parameters?
    Van Den Abbeele T; Noël-Petroff N; Akin I; Caner G; Olgun L; Guiraud J; Truy E; Attias J; Raveh E; Belgin E; Sennaroglu G; Basta D; Ernst A; Martini A; Rosignoli M; Levi H; Elidan J; Benghalem A; Amstutz-Montadert I; Lerosey Y; De Vel E; Dhooge I; Hildesheimer M; Kronenberg J; Arnold L
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2012 Feb; 13(1):26-34. PubMed ID: 22340749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients.
    Firszt JB; Koch DB; Downing M; Litvak L
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):629-36. PubMed ID: 17667771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and physiological spread of excitation using current steering in cochlear implants.
    Goehring JL; Neff DL; Baudhuin JL; Hughes ML
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Dec; 136(6):3159. PubMed ID: 25480063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations.
    Blamey PJ; Dooley GJ; Parisi ES; Clark GM
    Hear Res; 1996 Sep; 99(1-2):139-50. PubMed ID: 8970822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Incidence, Time Course, and Implications of Electrode Abnormalities in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Harris JM; Neault MW; O'Neill EE; Griffin AM; Kawai K; Kenna MA; Licameli GR
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(2):334-342. PubMed ID: 32826503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting.
    Gani M; Valentini G; Sigrist A; Kós MI; Boëx C
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2007 Mar; 8(1):69-83. PubMed ID: 17216585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Electrode interaction in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of straight and contour electrode arrays.
    Xi X; Ji F; Han D; Hong M; Chen A
    ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2009; 71(4):228-37. PubMed ID: 19707042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Cochlear Implantation with the CI512 and CI532 Precurved Electrode Arrays: One-Year Speech Recognition and Intraoperative Thresholds of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials.
    Videhult Pierre P; Eklöf M; Smeds H; Asp F
    Audiol Neurootol; 2019; 24(6):299-308. PubMed ID: 31846976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing.
    Nelson DA; Van Tasell DJ; Schroder AC; Soli S; Levine S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1995 Oct; 98(4):1987-99. PubMed ID: 7593921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Differences in the impedance of cochlear implant devices within 24 hours of their implantation.
    Lin DP; Chen JK; Tung TH; Li LP
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(9):e0222711. PubMed ID: 31536550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Melodic pitch perception and lexical tone perception in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.
    Tao D; Deng R; Jiang Y; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Chen B
    Ear Hear; 2015 Jan; 36(1):102-10. PubMed ID: 25099401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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