191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27798658)
1. 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]
2. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Longitudinal effect of deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds on speech recognition in cochlear implant users.
Zhou N
Int J Audiol; 2019 Sep; 58(9):587-597. PubMed ID: 31012771
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Pure-Tone Masking Patterns for Monopolar and Phantom Electrical Stimulation in Cochlear Implants.
Saoji AA; Koka K; Litvak LM; Finley CC
Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):124-130. PubMed ID: 28700446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear-Implant Users: Relationship to Psychometric Functions for Detection.
Zhou N; Dong L
Trends Hear; 2017 Jan; 21():2331216517690108. PubMed ID: 28150534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers.
Dingemanse JG; Frijns JH; Briaire JJ
Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):645-57. PubMed ID: 17086076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing.
Nelson DA; Donaldson GS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Dec; 112(6):2932-47. PubMed ID: 12509014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Across-site patterns of modulation detection: relation to speech recognition.
Garadat SN; Zwolan TA; Pfingst BE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 May; 131(5):4030-41. PubMed ID: 22559376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T
Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Stimulation Mode.
Zhou N; Dong L; Hang M
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Feb; 19(1):99-111. PubMed ID: 29086155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing.
Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():185-196. PubMed ID: 28688755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
