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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25644786)

  • 41. Auditory steady-state responses in cochlear implant users: Effect of modulation frequency and stimulation artifacts.
    Gransier R; Deprez H; Hofmann M; Moonen M; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2016 May; 335():149-160. PubMed ID: 26994660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Detection of gaps in sinusoids and pulse trains by patients with cochlear implants.
    Shannon RV
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Jun; 85(6):2587-92. PubMed ID: 2745882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Perceptual changes with monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation.
    Klawitter S; Landsberger DM; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2018 Mar; 359():64-75. PubMed ID: 29325874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Recovery from forward masking in cochlear implant listeners depends on stimulation mode, level, and electrode location.
    Chatterjee M; Kulkarni AM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):3190. PubMed ID: 28682084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Reducing Channel Interaction Through Cochlear Implant Programming May Improve Speech Perception: Current Focusing and Channel Deactivation.
    Bierer JA; Litvak L
    Trends Hear; 2016 Jun; 20():. PubMed ID: 27317668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Neural adaptation and behavioral measures of temporal processing and speech perception in cochlear implant recipients.
    Zhang F; Benson C; Murphy D; Boian M; Scott M; Keith R; Xiang J; Abbas P
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e84631. PubMed ID: 24386403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users I: effects of stimulus current level and electrode site on the electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 response.
    Firszt JB; Chambers RD; Kraus And N; Reeder RM
    Ear Hear; 2002 Dec; 23(6):502-15. PubMed ID: 12476088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Channel Interaction and Current Level Affect Across-Electrode Integration of Interaural Time Differences in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
    Egger K; Majdak P; Laback B
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Feb; 17(1):55-67. PubMed ID: 26377826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study.
    Mens LH; Berenstein CK
    Otol Neurotol; 2005 Sep; 26(5):957-64. PubMed ID: 16151343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [Determinants of the effectiveness of electric stimulation of the auditory nerve with cochlear implants: II. Configuration of the stimulating electrodes].
    Kral A; Hartmann R; Klinke R
    Bratisl Lek Listy; 2000; 101(3):170-2. PubMed ID: 10870263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus.
    Shannon RV; Otto SR
    Hear Res; 1990 Aug; 47(1-2):159-68. PubMed ID: 2228792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A Site-Selection Strategy Based on Polarity Sensitivity for Cochlear Implants: Effects on Spectro-Temporal Resolution and Speech Perception.
    Goehring T; Archer-Boyd A; Deeks JM; Arenberg JG; Carlyon RP
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2019 Aug; 20(4):431-448. PubMed ID: 31161338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis.
    Busby PA; Whitford LA; Blamey PJ; Richardson LM; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 May; 95(5 Pt 1):2658-69. PubMed ID: 8207139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. New parallel stimulation strategies revisited: effect of synchronous multi electrode stimulation on rate discrimination in cochlear implant users.
    Bahmer A; Baumann U
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2013 Jun; 14(3):142-9. PubMed ID: 22733121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration.
    Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 202(1-2):55-62. PubMed ID: 15811699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Auditory Detection Thresholds and Cochlear Resistivity Differ Between Pediatric Cochlear Implant Listeners With Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct and Those With Connexin-26 Mutations.
    Jahn KN; Bergan MD; Arenberg JG
    Am J Audiol; 2020 Mar; 29(1):23-34. PubMed ID: 31934787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Postoperative Electrocochleography from Hybrid Cochlear Implant users: An Alternative Analysis Procedure.
    Kim JS; Tejani VD; Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
    Hear Res; 2018 Dec; 370():304-315. PubMed ID: 30393003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Functional responses from guinea pigs with cochlear implants. I. Electrophysiological and psychophysical measures.
    Miller CA; Woodruff KE; Pfingst BE
    Hear Res; 1995 Dec; 92(1-2):85-99. PubMed ID: 8647749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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