186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32958791)
21. Effect of stimulus level on the temporal response properties of the auditory nerve in cochlear implants.
Hughes ML; Laurello SA
Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():116-129. PubMed ID: 28633960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Objective measures of electrode discrimination with electrically evoked auditory change complex and speech-perception abilities in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder.
He S; Grose JH; Teagle HF; Buchman CA
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(3):e63-74. PubMed ID: 24231629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Source analysis of auditory steady-state responses in acoustic and electric hearing.
Luke R; De Vos A; Wouters J
Neuroimage; 2017 Feb; 147():568-576. PubMed ID: 27894891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Neural envelope tracking as a measure of speech understanding in cochlear implant users.
Verschueren E; Somers B; Francart T
Hear Res; 2019 Mar; 373():23-31. PubMed ID: 30580236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users.
Kelly AS; Purdy SC; Thorne PR
Clin Neurophysiol; 2005 Jun; 116(6):1235-46. PubMed ID: 15978485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users I: effects of stimulus current level and electrode site on the electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 response.
Firszt JB; Chambers RD; Kraus And N; Reeder RM
Ear Hear; 2002 Dec; 23(6):502-15. PubMed ID: 12476088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The Sensitivity of the Electrically Stimulated Auditory Nerve to Amplitude Modulation Cues Declines With Advanced Age.
Riggs WJ; Vaughan C; Skidmore J; Conroy S; Pellittieri A; Carter BL; Stegman CJ; He S
Ear Hear; 2021; 42(5):1358-1372. PubMed ID: 33795616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Psychoacoustic and electroencephalographic responses to changes in amplitude modulation depth and frequency in relation to speech recognition in cochlear implantees.
Aldag N; Nogueira W
Sci Rep; 2024 Apr; 14(1):8181. PubMed ID: 38589483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interfaces: electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses measured with the partial tripolar configuration.
Bierer JA; Faulkner KF; Tremblay KL
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):436-44. PubMed ID: 21178633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Template Subtraction to Remove CI Stimulation Artifacts in Auditory Steady-State Responses in CI Subjects.
Deprez H; Gransier R; Hofmann M; van Wieringen A; Wouters J; Moonen M
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng; 2017 Aug; 25(8):1322-1331. PubMed ID: 27810831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Cochlear implant artifact attenuation in late auditory evoked potentials: a single channel approach.
Mc Laughlin M; Lopez Valdes A; Reilly RB; Zeng FG
Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():84-95. PubMed ID: 23727626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant listeners via single electrode stimulation in relation to speech perception.
Liebscher T; Alberter K; Hoppe U
Int J Audiol; 2018 Dec; 57(12):933-940. PubMed ID: 30295156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Variations in carrier pulse rate and the perception of amplitude modulation in cochlear implant users.
Green T; Faulkner A; Rosen S
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):221-30. PubMed ID: 22367093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. An objective auditory measure to assess speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users.
Turgeon C; Lazzouni L; Lepore F; Ellemberg D
Clin Neurophysiol; 2014 Apr; 125(4):827-835. PubMed ID: 24209981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Evaluation of evoked potentials to dyadic tones after cochlear implantation.
Sandmann P; Eichele T; Buechler M; Debener S; Jäncke L; Dillier N; Hugdahl K; Meyer M
Brain; 2009 Jul; 132(Pt 7):1967-79. PubMed ID: 19293240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Cortical auditory evoked potentials as an objective measure of behavioral thresholds in cochlear implant users.
Visram AS; Innes-Brown H; El-Deredy W; McKay CM
Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():35-42. PubMed ID: 25959269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Assessment of responses to cochlear implant stimulation at different levels of the auditory pathway.
Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():67-76. PubMed ID: 25445817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Rate modulation detection thresholds for cochlear implant users.
Brochier T; McKay C; McDermott H
J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Feb; 143(2):1214. PubMed ID: 29495682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Modeled auditory nerve responses to amplitude modulated cochlear implant stimulation.
van Gendt MJ; Briaire JJ; Kalkman RK; Frijns JHM
Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():19-33. PubMed ID: 28625417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
