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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25742726)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Measurements of monopolar and bipolar current spreads using forward-masking with a fixed probe.
    Bingabr MG; Espinoza-Varas B; Sigdel S
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 May; 15(3):166-72. PubMed ID: 24606491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Loudness summation for pulsatile electrical stimulation of the cochlea: effects of rate, electrode separation, level, and mode of stimulation.
    McKay CM; Remine MD; McDermott HJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Sep; 110(3 Pt 1):1514-24. PubMed ID: 11572362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Perceptual Spaces Induced by Cochlear Implant All-Polar Stimulation Mode.
    Marozeau J; McKay CM
    Trends Hear; 2016 Sep; 20():. PubMed ID: 27604784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients.
    Chatterjee M; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Mar; 7(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 16270234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Spread of excitation varies for different electrical pulse shapes and stimulation modes in cochlear implants.
    Undurraga JA; Carlyon RP; Macherey O; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
    Hear Res; 2012 Aug; 290(1-2):21-36. PubMed ID: 22583921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The perceptual effects of current pulse duration in electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve.
    McKay CM; McDermott HJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Aug; 106(2):998-1009. PubMed ID: 10462805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Spectral loudness summation for electrical stimulation in cochlear implant users.
    Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54(11):818-27. PubMed ID: 26068301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of stimulation mode on threshold and loudness growth in multielectrode cochlear implants.
    Chatterjee M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Feb; 105(2 Pt 1):850-60. PubMed ID: 9972570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Loudness summation, masking, and temporal interaction for sensations produced by electric stimulation of two sites in the human cochlea.
    Tong YC; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1986 Jun; 79(6):1958-66. PubMed ID: 3722606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Spread of excitation and channel interaction in single- and dual-electrode cochlear implant stimulation.
    Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; Vanpoucke FJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):367-76. PubMed ID: 22048258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Loudness summation for two channels of stimulation in cochlear implants: effects of spatial and temporal separation.
    McKay CM; McDermott HJ; Clark GM
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():230-3. PubMed ID: 7668649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Excitation Patterns of Standard and Steered Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants.
    Wu CC; Luo X
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Apr; 17(2):145-58. PubMed ID: 26691160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners.
    Kwon BJ; van den Honert C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 May; 119(5 Pt 1):2994-3002. PubMed ID: 16708955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Simultaneous and non-simultaneous dual electrode stimulation in cochlear implants: evidence for two neural response modalities.
    Frijns JH; Kalkman RK; Vanpoucke FJ; Bongers JS; Briaire JJ
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2009 Apr; 129(4):433-9. PubMed ID: 19117170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Electrical field imaging as a means to predict the loudness of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implant patients.
    Berenstein CK; Vanpoucke FJ; Mulder JJ; Mens LH
    Hear Res; 2010 Dec; 270(1-2):28-38. PubMed ID: 20946945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Interpulse interval discrimination within and across channels: comparison of monopolar and tripolar mode of stimulation.
    Fielden CA; Kluk K; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 May; 135(5):2913-22. PubMed ID: 24815271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.