246 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36379607)
1. The Relationship Between Interaural Insertion-Depth Differences, Scalar Location, and Interaural Time-Difference Processing in Adult Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
Cleary M; Bernstein JGW; Stakhovskaya OA; Noble J; Kolberg E; Jensen KK; Hoa M; Kim HJ; Goupell MJ
Trends Hear; 2022; 26():23312165221129165. PubMed ID: 36379607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Computed-Tomography Estimates of Interaural Mismatch in Insertion Depth and Scalar Location in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.
Goupell MJ; Noble JH; Phatak SA; Kolberg E; Cleary M; Stakhovskaya OA; Jensen KK; Hoa M; Kim HJ; Bernstein JGW
Otol Neurotol; 2022 Jul; 43(6):666-675. PubMed ID: 35761459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Interaural Place-of-Stimulation Mismatch Estimates Using CT Scans and Binaural Perception, But Not Pitch, Are Consistent in Cochlear-Implant Users.
Bernstein JGW; Jensen KK; Stakhovskaya OA; Noble JH; Hoa M; Kim HJ; Shih R; Kolberg E; Cleary M; Goupell MJ
J Neurosci; 2021 Dec; 41(49):10161-10178. PubMed ID: 34725189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Reweighting of Binaural Localization Cues in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
Klingel M; Laback B
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2022 Feb; 23(1):119-136. PubMed ID: 34812980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Channel Interaction and Current Level Affect Across-Electrode Integration of Interaural Time Differences in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
Egger K; Majdak P; Laback B
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Feb; 17(1):55-67. PubMed ID: 26377826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Interaural Time-Difference Discrimination as a Measure of Place of Stimulation for Cochlear-Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness.
Bernstein JGW; Stakhovskaya OA; Schuchman GI; Jensen KK; Goupell MJ
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518765514. PubMed ID: 29623771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Sensitivity to interaural level and envelope time differences of two bilateral cochlear implant listeners using clinical sound processors.
Laback B; Pok SM; Baumgartner WD; Deutsch WA; Schmid K
Ear Hear; 2004 Oct; 25(5):488-500. PubMed ID: 15599195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Localization and interaural time difference (ITD) thresholds for cochlear implant recipients with preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear.
Gifford RH; Grantham DW; Sheffield SW; Davis TJ; Dwyer R; Dorman MF
Hear Res; 2014 Jun; 312():28-37. PubMed ID: 24607490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Neural Processing of Acoustic and Electric Interaural Time Differences in Normal-Hearing Gerbils.
Vollmer M
J Neurosci; 2018 Aug; 38(31):6949-6966. PubMed ID: 29959238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
Gifford RH; Stecker GC
Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Sensitivity to interaural time differences in the inferior colliculus of cochlear implanted rats with or without hearing experience.
Buck AN; Rosskothen-Kuhl N; Schnupp JW
Hear Res; 2021 Sep; 408():108305. PubMed ID: 34315027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Sound Source Localization by Cochlear Implant Recipients with Normal Hearing in the Contralateral Ear: Effects of Spectral Content and Duration of Listening Experience.
Dillon MT; Rooth MA; Canfarotta MW; Richter ME; Thompson NJ; Brown KD
Audiol Neurootol; 2022; 27(6):437-448. PubMed ID: 35439753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1246. PubMed ID: 25190398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of Interaural Electrode Pairing Methods for Bilateral Cochlear Implants.
Hu H; Dietz M
Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26631108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Effect of Simulated Interaural Frequency Mismatch on Speech Understanding and Spatial Release From Masking.
Goupell MJ; Stoelb CA; Kan A; Litovsky RY
Ear Hear; 2018; 39(5):895-905. PubMed ID: 29337763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on the salience of binaural cues in conditions that simulate bilateral cochlear-implant listening.
Goupell MJ; Stoelb C; Kan A; Litovsky RY
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2272-87. PubMed ID: 23556595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interaural time and level difference thresholds for acoustically presented signals in post-lingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants using CIS+ processing.
Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Ricketts TA; Haynes DS; Labadie RF
Ear Hear; 2008 Jan; 29(1):33-44. PubMed ID: 18091105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Binaural sensitivity as a function of interaural electrode position with a bilateral cochlear implant user.
Long CJ; Eddington DK; Colburn HS; Rabinowitz WM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Sep; 114(3):1565-74. PubMed ID: 14514210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Extent of lateralization at large interaural time differences in simulated electric hearing and bilateral cochlear implant users.
Baumgärtel RM; Hu H; Kollmeier B; Dietz M
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2338. PubMed ID: 28464641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
