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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30423498)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Effects of pulse shape on pitch sensitivity of cochlear implant users.
    Arslan NO; Luo X
    Hear Res; 2024 Sep; 450():109075. PubMed ID: 38986164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users.
    Cosentino S; Carlyon RP; Deeks JM; Parkinson W; Bierer JA
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Aug; 17(4):371-82. PubMed ID: 27101997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Frequency change detection and speech perception in cochlear implant users.
    Zhang F; Underwood G; McGuire K; Liang C; Moore DR; Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2019 Aug; 379():12-20. PubMed ID: 31035223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Perceptual learning of pitch provided by cochlear implant stimulation rate.
    Bissmeyer SRS; Hossain S; Goldsworthy RL
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(12):e0242842. PubMed ID: 33270735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Relationships Among Peripheral and Central Electrophysiological Measures of Spatial and Spectral Selectivity and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Scheperle RA; Abbas PJ
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(4):441-53. PubMed ID: 25658746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Assessing the Relationship Between Pitch Perception and Neural Health in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Arslan NO; Luo X
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2022 Dec; 23(6):875-887. PubMed ID: 36329369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Cochlear-implant high pulse rate and narrow electrode configuration impair transmission of temporal information to the auditory cortex.
    Middlebrooks JC
    J Neurophysiol; 2008 Jul; 100(1):92-107. PubMed ID: 18450583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Temporal Regularity Detection and Rate Discrimination in Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
    Gaudrain E; Deeks JM; Carlyon RP
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2017 Apr; 18(2):387-397. PubMed ID: 27687041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Effect of Phantom Stimulation and Pseudomonophasic Pulse Shapes on Pitch Perception by Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Lamping W; Deeks JM; Marozeau J; Carlyon RP
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2020 Dec; 21(6):511-526. PubMed ID: 32804337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Enhanced Pitch Discrimination for Cochlear Implant Users with a New Haptic Neuroprosthetic.
    Fletcher MD; Thini N; Perry SW
    Sci Rep; 2020 Jun; 10(1):10354. PubMed ID: 32587354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Temporal Pitch Sensitivity in an Animal Model: Psychophysics and Scalp Recordings : Temporal Pitch Sensitivity in Cat.
    Richardson ML; Guérit F; Gransier R; Wouters J; Carlyon RP; Middlebrooks JC
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2022 Aug; 23(4):491-512. PubMed ID: 35668206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Masking patterns for monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation in cochlear implants.
    Saoji AA; Landsberger DM; Padilla M; Litvak LM
    Hear Res; 2013 Apr; 298():109-16. PubMed ID: 23299125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Place-pitch manipulations with cochlear implants.
    Macherey O; Carlyon RP
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Mar; 131(3):2225-36. PubMed ID: 22423718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Polarity Sensitivity in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519862987. PubMed ID: 31373266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of Possible Effects of a Potassium Channel Modulator on Temporal Processing by Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Carlyon RP; Deeks JM; Guérit F; Lamping W; Billig AJ; Large CH; Saeed SR; Harris P
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Dec; 19(6):669-680. PubMed ID: 30232712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.