178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33647574)
1. Frequency following responses and rate change complexes in cochlear implant users.
Gransier R; Guérit F; Carlyon RP; Wouters J
Hear Res; 2021 May; 404():108200. PubMed ID: 33647574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Artifact removal by template subtraction enables recordings of the frequency following response in cochlear-implant users.
Gransier R; Carlyon RP; Richardson ML; Middlebrooks JC; Wouters J
Sci Rep; 2024 Mar; 14(1):6158. PubMed ID: 38486005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Auditory steady-state responses in cochlear implant users: Effect of modulation frequency and stimulation artifacts.
Gransier R; Deprez H; Hofmann M; Moonen M; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
Hear Res; 2016 May; 335():149-160. PubMed ID: 26994660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Electrophysiological assessment of temporal envelope processing in cochlear implant users.
Gransier R; Carlyon RP; Wouters J
Sci Rep; 2020 Sep; 10(1):15406. PubMed ID: 32958791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The Electrically Evoked Auditory Change Complex Evoked by Temporal Gaps Using Cochlear Implants or Auditory Brainstem Implants in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency.
He S; McFayden TC; Shahsavarani BS; Teagle HFB; Ewend M; Henderson L; Buchman CA
Ear Hear; 2018; 39(3):482-494. PubMed ID: 28968281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. The effect of changes in stimulus level on electrically evoked cortical auditory potentials.
Kim JR; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ; Etler CP; O'Brien S
Ear Hear; 2009 Jun; 30(3):320-9. PubMed ID: 19322089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The electrically evoked auditory change complex: preliminary results from nucleus cochlear implant users.
Brown CJ; Etler C; He S; O'Brien S; Erenberg S; Kim JR; Dhuldhoya AN; Abbas PJ
Ear Hear; 2008 Oct; 29(5):704-17. PubMed ID: 18596644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Development and validation of a method to record electrophysiological responses in direct acoustic cochlear implant subjects.
Deprez H; Gransier R; Hofmann M; Wouters J; Verhaert N
Hear Res; 2018 Dec; 370():217-231. PubMed ID: 30213516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Preliminary results of the relationship between the binaural interaction component of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response and interaural pitch comparisons in bilateral cochlear implant recipients.
He S; Brown CJ; Abbas PJ
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(1):57-68. PubMed ID: 21730858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Electrically evoked auditory steady state responses in cochlear implant users.
Hofmann M; Wouters J
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2010 Jun; 11(2):267-82. PubMed ID: 20033246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Rate pitch discrimination in cochlear implant users with the use of double pulses and different interpulse intervals.
Pieper SH; Bahmer A
Cochlear Implants Int; 2019 Nov; 20(6):312-323. PubMed ID: 31448701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Relationships between auditory nerve activity and temporal pitch perception in cochlear implant users.
Carlyon RP; Deeks JM
Adv Exp Med Biol; 2013; 787():363-71. PubMed ID: 23716242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Direct Elicitation of Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials by Electrical Stimulation and Their Use to Verify the Most Comfortable Level of Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Users.
Tavora-Vieira D; Ffoulkes E
Audiol Neurootol; 2023; 28(4):294-307. PubMed ID: 36958296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users II: comparison among speech perception, dynamic range, and physiological measures.
Firszt JB; Chambers And RD; Kraus N
Ear Hear; 2002 Dec; 23(6):516-31. PubMed ID: 12476089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
