230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31161338)
1. 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]
2. Evaluation of Two Spectro-Temporal Ripple Tests and Their Relation to the Matrix Speech-in-Noise Sentence Test in Cochlear Implant Recipients.
van Groesen NRA; Briaire JJ; Frijns JHM
Ear Hear; 2023 Sep-Oct 01; 44(5):1221-1228. PubMed ID: 37046376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Polarity Sensitivity as a Potential Correlate of Neural Degeneration in Cochlear Implant Users.
Mesnildrey Q; Venail F; Carlyon RP; Macherey O
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2020 Feb; 21(1):89-104. PubMed ID: 32020417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Processing of speech temporal and spectral information by users of auditory brainstem implants and cochlear implants.
Azadpour M; McKay CM
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(5):e192-203. PubMed ID: 25010634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Detection Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Users: Relationships with Average Threshold, Gap Detection, and Rate Discrimination.
Carlyon RP; Cosentino S; Deeks JM; Parkinson W; Arenberg JG
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Oct; 19(5):559-567. PubMed ID: 29881937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dynamic Current Focusing Compared to Monopolar Stimulation in a Take-Home Trial of Cochlear Implant Users.
van Groesen NRA; Briaire JJ; de Jong MAM; Frijns JHM
Ear Hear; 2023 Mar-Apr 01; 44(2):306-317. PubMed ID: 36279119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effects of site-specific level adjustments on speech recognition with cochlear implants.
Zhou N; Pfingst BE
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(1):30-40. PubMed ID: 24225651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Spectro-temporal cues enhance modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
Zheng Y; Escabí M; Litovsky RY
Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():45-54. PubMed ID: 28601530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Contribution of Verbal Learning & Memory and Spectro-Temporal Discrimination to Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.
Harris MS; Hamel BL; Wichert K; Kozlowski K; Mleziva S; Ray C; Pisoni DB; Kronenberger WG; Moberly AC
Laryngoscope; 2023 Mar; 133(3):661-669. PubMed ID: 35567421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. An online implementation of a measure of spectro-temporal processing by cochlear-implant listeners.
Archer-Boyd AW; Harland A; Goehring T; Carlyon RP
JASA Express Lett; 2023 Jan; 3(1):014402. PubMed ID: 36725534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.
Baudhuin J; Cadieux J; Firszt JB; Reeder RM; Maxson JL
J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):302-12. PubMed ID: 22533974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.
Winn MB; Won JH; Moon IJ
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(6):e377-e390. PubMed ID: 27438871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test With the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test in Cochlear Implant Users.
Lawler M; Yu J; Aronoff JM
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(6):760-766. PubMed ID: 28957975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Psychoacoustic abilities associated with music perception in cochlear implant users.
Won JH; Drennan WR; Kang RS; Rubinstein JT
Ear Hear; 2010 Dec; 31(6):796-805. PubMed ID: 20595901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of Pulse Rate and Polarity on the Sensitivity of Auditory Brainstem and Cochlear Implant Users to Electrical Stimulation.
Carlyon RP; Deeks JM; McKay CM
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Oct; 16(5):653-68. PubMed ID: 26138501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations.
Berenstein CK; Mens LH; Mulder JJ; Vanpoucke FJ
Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):250-60. PubMed ID: 18595189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
