BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

426 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25445817)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Effect of stimulus level on the temporal response properties of the auditory nerve in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Laurello SA
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():116-129. PubMed ID: 28633960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Cortical auditory evoked potentials as an objective measure of behavioral thresholds in cochlear implant users.
    Visram AS; Innes-Brown H; El-Deredy W; McKay CM
    Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():35-42. PubMed ID: 25959269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Getting a decent (but sparse) signal to the brain for users of cochlear implants.
    Wilson BS
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():24-38. PubMed ID: 25500178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant listeners via single electrode stimulation in relation to speech perception.
    Liebscher T; Alberter K; Hoppe U
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Dec; 57(12):933-940. PubMed ID: 30295156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Considering optogenetic stimulation for cochlear implants.
    Jeschke M; Moser T
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():224-34. PubMed ID: 25601298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Measuring temporal response properties of auditory nerve fibers in cochlear implant recipients.
    Tabibi S; Kegel A; Lai WK; Bruce IC; Dillier N
    Hear Res; 2019 Sep; 380():187-196. PubMed ID: 31325737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Modeled auditory nerve responses to amplitude modulated cochlear implant stimulation.
    van Gendt MJ; Briaire JJ; Kalkman RK; Frijns JHM
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():19-33. PubMed ID: 28625417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Auditory implant research at the House Ear Institute 1989-2013.
    Shannon RV
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():57-66. PubMed ID: 25449009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Audibility, speech perception and processing of temporal cues in ribbon synaptic disorders due to OTOF mutations.
    Santarelli R; del Castillo I; Cama E; Scimemi P; Starr A
    Hear Res; 2015 Dec; 330(Pt B):200-12. PubMed ID: 26188103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.