182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25281795)
1. Development and evaluation of the Nurotron 26-electrode cochlear implant system.
Zeng FG; Rebscher SJ; Fu QJ; Chen H; Sun X; Yin L; Ping L; Feng H; Yang S; Gong S; Yang B; Kang HY; Gao N; Chi F
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():188-99. PubMed ID: 25281795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Gradual adaptation to auditory frequency mismatch.
Svirsky MA; Talavage TM; Sinha S; Neuburger H; Azadpour M
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():163-70. PubMed ID: 25445816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Importance of cochlear health for implant function.
Pfingst BE; Zhou N; Colesa DJ; Watts MM; Strahl SB; Garadat SN; Schvartz-Leyzac KC; Budenz CL; Raphael Y; Zwolan TA
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():77-88. PubMed ID: 25261772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment of responses to cochlear implant stimulation at different levels of the auditory pathway.
Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():67-76. PubMed ID: 25445817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Speech perception with interaction-compensated simultaneous stimulation and long pulse durations in cochlear implant users.
Schatzer R; Koroleva I; Griessner A; Levin S; Kusovkov V; Yanov Y; Zierhofer C
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():99-106. PubMed ID: 25457654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users.
Nelson DA; Kreft HA; Anderson ES; Donaldson GS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3916-33. PubMed ID: 21682414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Objective assessment of electrode discrimination with the auditory change complex in adult cochlear implant users.
Mathew R; Undurraga J; Li G; Meerton L; Boyle P; Shaida A; Selvadurai D; Jiang D; Vickers D
Hear Res; 2017 Oct; 354():86-101. PubMed ID: 28826636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.
Dorman MF; Cook S; Spahr A; Zhang T; Loiselle L; Schramm D; Whittingham J; Gifford R
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():107-11. PubMed ID: 25285624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Perception and coding of interaural time differences with bilateral cochlear implants.
Laback B; Egger K; Majdak P
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():138-50. PubMed ID: 25456088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The multi-channel cochlear implant: multi-disciplinary development of electrical stimulation of the cochlea and the resulting clinical benefit.
Clark GM
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():4-13. PubMed ID: 25159273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Voice emotion recognition by cochlear-implanted children and their normally-hearing peers.
Chatterjee M; Zion DJ; Deroche ML; Burianek BA; Limb CJ; Goren AP; Kulkarni AM; Christensen JA
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():151-62. PubMed ID: 25448167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Utility of bilateral acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant.
Plant K; Babic L
Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S31-8. PubMed ID: 26987051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Adding simultaneous stimulating channels to reduce power consumption in cochlear implants.
Langner F; Saoji AA; Büchner A; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 345():96-107. PubMed ID: 28104408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Auditory midbrain implant: research and development towards a second clinical trial.
Lim HH; Lenarz T
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():212-23. PubMed ID: 25613994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Consonant recognition as a function of the number of stimulation channels in the Hybrid short-electrode cochlear implant.
Reiss LA; Turner CW; Karsten SA; Erenberg SR; Taylor J; Gantz BJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3406-17. PubMed ID: 23145621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.
Debruyne JA; Francart T; Janssen AM; Douma K; Brokx JP
Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):174-185. PubMed ID: 27758152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A neural-based vocoder implementation for evaluating cochlear implant coding strategies.
El Boghdady N; Kegel A; Lai WK; Dillier N
Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():136-149. PubMed ID: 26775182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of electrode configuration on cochlear implant modulation detection thresholds.
Pfingst BE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3908-15. PubMed ID: 21682413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
