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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31977727)

  • 1. Effectiveness of Phantom Stimulation in Shifting the Pitch Percept in Cochlear Implant Users.
    de Jong MAM; Briaire JJ; Biesheuvel JD; Snel-Bongers J; Böhringer S; Timp GRFM; Frijns JHM
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1258-1269. PubMed ID: 31977727
    [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. Pure-Tone Masking Patterns for Monopolar and Phantom Electrical Stimulation in Cochlear Implants.
    Saoji AA; Koka K; Litvak LM; Finley CC
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):124-130. PubMed ID: 28700446
    [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. 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]  

  • 6. Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear-Implant Users: Channel Independence in Apical Cochlear Regions.
    Griessner A; Schatzer R; Steixner V; Rajan GP; Zierhofer C; Távora-Vieira D
    Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211020645. PubMed ID: 34041983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Use of the Phantom Electrode strategy to improve bass frequency perception for music listening in cochlear implant users.
    Munjal T; Roy AT; Carver C; Jiradejvong P; Limb CJ
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 3():S121-8. PubMed ID: 26561883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Spread of excitation and channel interaction in single- and dual-electrode cochlear implant stimulation.
    Snel-Bongers J; Briaire JJ; Vanpoucke FJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):367-76. PubMed ID: 22048258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing.
    Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Ear Hear; 2022; 43(2):631-645. PubMed ID: 34593687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.
    Boëx C; Baud L; Cosendai G; Sigrist A; Kós MI; Pelizzone M
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun; 7(2):110-24. PubMed ID: 16450213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Extending the limits of place and temporal pitch perception in cochlear implant users.
    Macherey O; Deeks JM; Carlyon RP
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2011 Apr; 12(2):233-51. PubMed ID: 21116672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of Place-versus-Pitch Mismatch between a Perimodiolar and Lateral Wall Cochlear Implant Electrode Array in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant.
    Peters JPM; Bennink E; van Zanten GA
    Audiol Neurootol; 2019; 24(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 30995658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Simultaneous and non-simultaneous dual electrode stimulation in cochlear implants: evidence for two neural response modalities.
    Frijns JH; Kalkman RK; Vanpoucke FJ; Bongers JS; Briaire JJ
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2009 Apr; 129(4):433-9. PubMed ID: 19117170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study.
    Mens LH; Berenstein CK
    Otol Neurotol; 2005 Sep; 26(5):957-64. PubMed ID: 16151343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
    Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of interaural pitch matching and auditory image centering on binaural sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
    Kan A; Litovsky RY; Goupell MJ
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):e62-8. PubMed ID: 25565660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cochlear Place of Stimulation Is One Determinant of Cochlear Implant Sound Quality.
    Dorman MF; Cook Natale S; Baxter L; Zeitler DM; Carlson ML; Noble JH
    Audiol Neurootol; 2019; 24(5):264-269. PubMed ID: 31661682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Place dependent stimulation rates improve pitch perception in cochlear implantees with single-sided deafness.
    Rader T; Döge J; Adel Y; Weissgerber T; Baumann U
    Hear Res; 2016 Sep; 339():94-103. PubMed ID: 27374479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.