417 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26926152)
1. Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.
DeVries L; Scheperle R; Bierer JA
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Jun; 17(3):237-52. PubMed ID: 26926152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels With Relatively Poor Electrode-Neuron Interfaces Using the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.
Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(4):961-973. PubMed ID: 31972772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Comparison of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and loudness estimates for the stimuli used to program the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant.
Jeon EK; Brown CJ; Etler CP; O'Brien S; Chiou LK; Abbas PJ
J Am Acad Audiol; 2010 Jan; 21(1):16-27. PubMed ID: 20085196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interfaces: electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses measured with the partial tripolar configuration.
Bierer JA; Faulkner KF; Tremblay KL
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):436-44. PubMed ID: 21178633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict C-levels in the Tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor.
Alvarez I; de la Torre A; Sainz M; Roldán C; Schoesser H; Spitzer P
Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):134-45. PubMed ID: 19838116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cochlear Implantation with the CI512 and CI532 Precurved Electrode Arrays: One-Year Speech Recognition and Intraoperative Thresholds of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials.
Videhult Pierre P; Eklöf M; Smeds H; Asp F
Audiol Neurootol; 2019; 24(6):299-308. PubMed ID: 31846976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.
Bierer JA; Faulkner KF
Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):247-58. PubMed ID: 20090533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Using the electrically-evoked compound action potential (ECAP) interphase gap effect to select electrode stimulation sites in cochlear implant users.
Schvartz-Leyzac KC; Zwolan TA; Pfingst BE
Hear Res; 2021 Jul; 406():108257. PubMed ID: 34020316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Examining the electro-neural interface of cochlear implant users using psychophysics, CT scans, and speech understanding.
Long CJ; Holden TA; McClelland GH; Parkinson WS; Shelton C; Kelsall DC; Smith ZM
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2014 Apr; 15(2):293-304. PubMed ID: 24477546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) in cochlear implant children: Changes in auditory nerve response in first year of cochlear implant use.
Telmesani LM; Said NM
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2016 Mar; 82():28-33. PubMed ID: 26857311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Electrically evoked amplitude modulation following response in cochlear implant candidates: comparison with auditory nerve response telemetry, subjective electrical stimulation, and speech perception.
Hirschfelder A; Gräbel S; Olze H
Otol Neurotol; 2012 Aug; 33(6):968-75. PubMed ID: 22772009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.
Busby PA; Battmer RD; Pesch J
Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):853-64. PubMed ID: 18633324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.
Bierer JA; Nye AD
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):641-51. PubMed ID: 25036146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Relationship Between Peripheral and Psychophysical Measures of Amplitude Modulation Detection in Cochlear Implant Users.
Tejani VD; Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):e268-e284. PubMed ID: 28207576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays.
Hughes ML; Abbas PJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Mar; 119(3):1538-47. PubMed ID: 16583899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The relation between ECAP measurements and the effect of rate on behavioral thresholds in cochlear implant users.
McKay CM; Smale N
Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 346():62-70. PubMed ID: 28213133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessing the relationship between neural health measures and speech performance with simultaneous electric stimulation in cochlear implant listeners.
Langner F; Arenberg JG; Büchner A; Nogueira W
PLoS One; 2021; 16(12):e0261295. PubMed ID: 34898654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude growth functions and HiResolution programming levels in pediatric CII implant subjects.
Eisen MD; Franck KH
Ear Hear; 2004 Dec; 25(6):528-38. PubMed ID: 15604914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
