143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25644786)
21. Assessment of intracochlear electrode position and correlation with behavioural thresholds in CII and 90K cochlear implants.
Filipo R; Mancini P; Panebianco V; Viccaro M; Covelli E; Vergari V; Passariello R
Acta Otolaryngol; 2008 Mar; 128(3):291-6. PubMed ID: 18274915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children.
Gordon KA; Papsin BC; Harrison RV
Ear Hear; 2004 Oct; 25(5):447-63. PubMed ID: 15599192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Monopolar Detection Thresholds Predict Spatial Selectivity of Neural Excitation in Cochlear Implants: Implications for Speech Recognition.
Zhou N
PLoS One; 2016; 11(10):e0165476. PubMed ID: 27798658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients.
Potts LG; Skinner MW; Gotter BD; Strube MJ; Brenner CA
Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):495-511. PubMed ID: 17609612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Place specificity of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implants: the influence of residual masking.
Fielden CA; Kluk K; McKay CM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4109-23. PubMed ID: 23742363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Electrically evoked auditory steady state responses in cochlear implant users.
Hofmann M; Wouters J
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2010 Jun; 11(2):267-82. PubMed ID: 20033246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations.
Berenstein CK; Mens LH; Mulder JJ; Vanpoucke FJ
Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):250-60. PubMed ID: 18595189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems.
Boëx C; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Oct; 114(4 Pt 1):2058-65. PubMed ID: 14587605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Effect of Pulse Rate and Polarity on the Sensitivity of Auditory Brainstem and Cochlear Implant Users to Electrical Stimulation.
Carlyon RP; Deeks JM; McKay CM
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Oct; 16(5):653-68. PubMed ID: 26138501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Psychophysical Tuning Curves as a Correlate of Electrode Position in Cochlear Implant Listeners.
DeVries L; Arenberg JG
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Oct; 19(5):571-587. PubMed ID: 29869047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.
Hughes ML; Stille LJ
Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):679-92. PubMed ID: 20505513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A fast method for measuring psychophysical thresholds across the cochlear implant array.
Bierer JA; Bierer SM; Kreft HA; Oxenham AJ
Trends Hear; 2015 Feb; 19():. PubMed ID: 25656797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Evaluating Psychophysical Polarity Sensitivity as an Indirect Estimate of Neural Status in Cochlear Implant Listeners.
Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2019 Aug; 20(4):415-430. PubMed ID: 30949879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?
Venter PJ; Hanekom JJ
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2014 Oct; 15(5):849-66. PubMed ID: 24942704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems.
Boëx C; de Balthasar C; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Oct; 114(4 Pt 1):2049-57. PubMed ID: 14587604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Perceptual interactions between electrodes using focused and monopolar cochlear stimulation.
Marozeau J; McDermott HJ; Swanson BA; McKay CM
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Jun; 16(3):401-12. PubMed ID: 25742726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients.
Saoji AA; Litvak LM; Hughes ML
Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):559-67. PubMed ID: 19617837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Behavioral and electrophysiological responses to electrical stimulation in the cat. I. Absolute thresholds.
Smith DW; Finley CC; van den Honert C; Olszyk VB; Konrad KE
Hear Res; 1994 Dec; 81(1-2):1-10. PubMed ID: 7737916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
