278 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30031354)
21. Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.
Scheperle RA; Tejani VD; Omtvedt JK; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ; Hansen MR; Gantz BJ; Oleson JJ; Ozanne MV
Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():45-57. PubMed ID: 28432874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients.
Vroegop JL; Homans NC; Goedegebure A; van der Schroeff MP
Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):858-863. PubMed ID: 30261771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Effects of insertion depth on spatial speech perception in noise for simulations of cochlear implants and single-sided deafness.
Zhou X; Li H; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Yuan W
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S41-S48. PubMed ID: 27367147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Characterizing the relationship between modulation sensitivity and pitch resolution in cochlear implant users.
Camarena A; Goldsworthy RL
Hear Res; 2024 Jul; 448():109026. PubMed ID: 38776706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Contralateral suppression of human hearing sensitivity in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users.
Nogueira W; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lopez-Poveda E
Hear Res; 2019 Mar; 373():121-129. PubMed ID: 29941311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Dynamic current steering with phantom electrode in cochlear implants.
Luo X; Garrett C
Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107949. PubMed ID: 32200300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. When singing with cochlear implants, are two ears worse than one for perilingually/postlingually deaf individuals?
Aronoff JM; Kirchner A; Abbs E; Harmon B
J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jun; 143(6):EL503. PubMed ID: 29960471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Interaural envelope correlation change discrimination in bilateral cochlear implantees: effects of mismatch, centering, and onset of deafness.
Goupell MJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1282-97. PubMed ID: 25786942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Current Focusing to Reduce Channel Interaction for Distant Electrodes in Cochlear Implant Programs.
DeVries L; Arenberg JG
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518813811. PubMed ID: 30488764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A neural-based vocoder implementation for evaluating cochlear implant coding strategies.
El Boghdady N; Kegel A; Lai WK; Dillier N
Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():136-149. PubMed ID: 26775182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Development and evaluation of the Nurotron 26-electrode cochlear implant system.
Zeng FG; Rebscher SJ; Fu QJ; Chen H; Sun X; Yin L; Ping L; Feng H; Yang S; Gong S; Yang B; Kang HY; Gao N; Chi F
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():188-99. PubMed ID: 25281795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Peripheral and Central Contributions to Cortical Responses in Cochlear Implant Users.
Scheperle RA; Abbas PJ
Ear Hear; 2015; 36(4):430-40. PubMed ID: 25658747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Pitch matching in bimodal cochlear implant patients: Effects of frequency, spectral envelope, and level.
Maarefvand M; Blamey PJ; Marozeau J
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):2854. PubMed ID: 29195427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. An improved method of obtaining electrocochleography recordings from Nucleus Hybrid cochlear implant users.
Tejani VD; Abbas PJ; Brown CJ; Woo J
Hear Res; 2019 Mar; 373():113-120. PubMed ID: 30665078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Importance of cochlear health for implant function.
Pfingst BE; Zhou N; Colesa DJ; Watts MM; Strahl SB; Garadat SN; Schvartz-Leyzac KC; Budenz CL; Raphael Y; Zwolan TA
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():77-88. PubMed ID: 25261772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Effects of high-rate pulse trains on electrode discrimination in cochlear implant users.
Runge-Samuelson CL
Trends Amplif; 2009 Jun; 13(2):76-86. PubMed ID: 19447763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The Acoustic Change Complex Compared to Hearing Performance in Unilaterally and Bilaterally Deaf Cochlear Implant Users.
van Heteren JAA; Vonck BMD; Stokroos RJ; Versnel H; Lammers MJW
Ear Hear; 2022 Nov-Dec 01; 43(6):1783-1799. PubMed ID: 35696186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Perceptual Differences Between Low-Frequency Analog and Pulsatile Stimulation as Shown by Single- and Multidimensional Scaling.
Stupak N; Padilla M; Morse RP; Landsberger DM
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518807535. PubMed ID: 30378468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
