202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30378468)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Objective assessment of electrode discrimination with the auditory change complex in adult cochlear implant users.
Mathew R; Undurraga J; Li G; Meerton L; Boyle P; Shaida A; Selvadurai D; Jiang D; Vickers D
Hear Res; 2017 Oct; 354():86-101. PubMed ID: 28826636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Binaural timing information in electric hearing at low rates: Effects of inaccurate encoding and loudness.
Egger K; Majdak P; Laback B
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):3164. PubMed ID: 28599571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Optimal gain control step sizes for bimodal stimulation.
Spirrov D; van Dijk B; Francart T
Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):184-193. PubMed ID: 29172895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reduction in spread of excitation from current focusing at multiple cochlear locations in cochlear implant users.
Padilla M; Landsberger DM
Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():98-107. PubMed ID: 26778546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Perceptual changes in place of stimulation with long cochlear implant electrode arrays.
Landsberger DM; Mertens G; Punte AK; Van De Heyning P
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Feb; 135(2):EL75-81. PubMed ID: 25234918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.
Debruyne JA; Francart T; Janssen AM; Douma K; Brokx JP
Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):174-185. PubMed ID: 27758152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Categorical loudness scaling in cochlear implant recipients.
Busby PA; Au A
Int J Audiol; 2017 Nov; 56(11):862-869. PubMed ID: 28639840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch.
Schatzer R; Vermeire K; Visser D; Krenmayr A; Kals M; Voormolen M; Van de Heyning P; Zierhofer C
Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():26-35. PubMed ID: 24252455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparing sound localization deficits in bilateral cochlear-implant users and vocoder simulations with normal-hearing listeners.
Jones H; Kan A; Litovsky RY
Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25385244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Development of electrophysiological and behavioural measures of electrode discrimination in adult cochlear implant users.
Mathew R; Vickers D; Boyle P; Shaida A; Selvadurai D; Jiang D; Undurraga J
Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():74-87. PubMed ID: 30031354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Loudness and pitch perception using Dynamically Compensated Virtual Channels.
Nogueira W; Litvak LM; Landsberger DM; Büchner A
Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():223-234. PubMed ID: 27939418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
