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 *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31905132)

  • 41. Across-species comparisons of psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea: II. Strength-duration functions for single, biphasic pulses.
    Miller AL; Smith DW; Pfingst BE
    Hear Res; 1999 Sep; 135(1-2):47-55. PubMed ID: 10491953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Effect of Pulse Polarity on Thresholds and on Non-monotonic Loudness Growth in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Macherey O; Carlyon RP; Chatron J; Roman S
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2017 Jun; 18(3):513-527. PubMed ID: 28138791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Preferential activation of small cutaneous fibers through small pin electrode also depends on the shape of a long duration electrical current.
    Hugosdottir R; Mørch CD; Andersen OK; Helgason T; Arendt-Nielsen L
    BMC Neurosci; 2019 Sep; 20(1):48. PubMed ID: 31521103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. Effects of electrical pulse polarity shape on intra cochlear neural responses in humans: triphasic pulses with cathodic second phase.
    Bahmer A; Baumann U
    Hear Res; 2013 Dec; 306():123-30. PubMed ID: 24161948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Three-dimensional multilayer concentric bipolar electrodes restrict spatial activation in optic nerve stimulation.
    Borda E; Gaillet V; Airaghi Leccardi MJI; Zollinger EG; Moreira RC; Ghezzi D
    J Neural Eng; 2022 May; 19(3):. PubMed ID: 35523152
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Perceptual Spaces Induced by Cochlear Implant All-Polar Stimulation Mode.
    Marozeau J; McKay CM
    Trends Hear; 2016 Sep; 20():. PubMed ID: 27604784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. 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]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Reduction in excitability of the auditory nerve following acute electrical stimulation at high stimulus rates: III. Capacitive versus non-capacitive coupling of the stimulating electrodes.
    Huang CQ; Shepherd RK; Seligman PM; Clark GM
    Hear Res; 1998 Feb; 116(1-2):55-64. PubMed ID: 9508028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Focal activation of the feline retina via a suprachoroidal electrode array.
    Wong YT; Chen SC; Seo JM; Morley JW; Lovell NH; Suaning GJ
    Vision Res; 2009 Mar; 49(8):825-33. PubMed ID: 19272402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Monopolar vs. bipolar subretinal stimulation-an in vitro study.
    Gerhardt M; Groeger G; Maccarthy N
    J Neurosci Methods; 2011 Jul; 199(1):26-34. PubMed ID: 21557968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Cortical responses to cochlear implant stimulation: channel interactions.
    Bierer JA; Middlebrooks JC
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Mar; 5(1):32-48. PubMed ID: 14564662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface for Prostheses Control: Electrode Comparison.
    Sando IC; Leach MK; Woo SL; Moon JD; Cederna PS; Langhals NB; Urbanchek MG
    J Reconstr Microsurg; 2016 Mar; 32(3):194-9. PubMed ID: 26502083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The effect of electrode configuration and duration of deafness on threshold and selectivity of responses to intracochlear electrical stimulation.
    Rebscher SJ; Snyder RL; Leake PA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 May; 109(5 Pt 1):2035-48. PubMed ID: 11386556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Effect of inter-phase gap on the sensitivity of cochlear implant users to electrical stimulation.
    Carlyon RP; van Wieringen A; Deeks JM; Long CJ; Lyzenga J; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2005 Jul; 205(1-2):210-24. PubMed ID: 15953530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. An Anodic Phase Can Facilitate Rather Than Weaken a Cathodic Phase to Activate Neurons in Biphasic-Pulse Axonal Stimulations.
    Zheng L; Feng Z; Xu Y; Yuan Y; Hu Y
    Front Neurosci; 2022; 16():823423. PubMed ID: 35368280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Electrically evoked whole nerve action potentials in Ineraid cochlear implant users: responses to different stimulating electrode configurations and comparison to psychophysical responses.
    Brown CJ; Abbas PJ; Borland J; Bertschy MR
    J Speech Hear Res; 1996 Jun; 39(3):453-67. PubMed ID: 8783126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants.
    Pfingst BE; Zwolan TA; Holloway LA
    Hear Res; 1997 Oct; 112(1-2):247-60. PubMed ID: 9367245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.