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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33765782)

  • 1. Recovery from forward masking in cochlear implant listeners: Effects of age and the electrode-neuron interface.
    Jahn KN; DeVries L; Arenberg JG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Mar; 149(3):1633. PubMed ID: 33765782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels With Relatively Poor Electrode-Neuron Interfaces Using the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.
    Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(4):961-973. PubMed ID: 31972772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.
    Bierer JA; Faulkner KF
    Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):247-58. PubMed ID: 20090533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Single-Channel Focused Thresholds Relate to Vowel Identification in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Arjmandi MK; Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
    Trends Hear; 2022; 26():23312165221095364. PubMed ID: 35505617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Recovery from forward masking in cochlear implant listeners depends on stimulation mode, level, and electrode location.
    Chatterjee M; Kulkarni AM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):3190. PubMed ID: 28682084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Recovery from forward masking in elderly cochlear implant users.
    Lee ER; Friedland DR; Runge CL
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Apr; 33(3):355-63. PubMed ID: 22410729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Estimated Electrode-Neuron Interface in Cochlear Implant Listeners Is Different for Early-Implanted Children and Late-Implanted Adults.
    DiNino M; O'Brien G; Bierer SM; Jahn KN; Arenberg JG
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2019 Jun; 20(3):291-303. PubMed ID: 30911952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.
    DeVries L; Scheperle R; Bierer JA
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Jun; 17(3):237-52. PubMed ID: 26926152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant listeners under forward masking conditions.
    Chatterjee M; Kulkarni AM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Feb; 143(2):1117. PubMed ID: 29495705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Psychophysical Tuning Curves as a Correlate of Electrode Position in Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    DeVries L; Arenberg JG
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Oct; 19(5):571-587. PubMed ID: 29869047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Central Auditory Processing of Temporal and Spectral-Variance Cues in Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Pham CQ; Bremen P; Shen W; Yang SM; Middlebrooks JC; Zeng FG; Mc Laughlin M
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(7):e0132423. PubMed ID: 26176553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Impact of Aging and the Electrode-to-Neural Interface on Temporal Processing Ability in Cochlear-Implant Users: Amplitude-Modulation Detection Thresholds.
    Shader MJ; Gordon-Salant S; Goupell MJ
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520936160. PubMed ID: 32833587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing the relationship between neural health measures and speech performance with simultaneous electric stimulation in cochlear implant listeners.
    Langner F; Arenberg JG; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(12):e0261295. PubMed ID: 34898654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus.
    Shannon RV; Otto SR
    Hear Res; 1990 Aug; 47(1-2):159-68. PubMed ID: 2228792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Auditory Enhancement in Cochlear-Implant Users Under Simultaneous and Forward Masking.
    Kreft HA; Oxenham AJ
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2017 Jun; 18(3):483-493. PubMed ID: 28303412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluating multipulse integration as a neural-health correlate in human cochlear-implant users: Relationship to forward-masking recovery.
    Zhou N; Pfingst BE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Mar; 139(3):EL70-5. PubMed ID: 27036290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Auditory Detection Thresholds and Cochlear Resistivity Differ Between Pediatric Cochlear Implant Listeners With Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct and Those With Connexin-26 Mutations.
    Jahn KN; Bergan MD; Arenberg JG
    Am J Audiol; 2020 Mar; 29(1):23-34. PubMed ID: 31934787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.