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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38459245)

  • 1. Exploring the Use of Interleaved Stimuli to Measure Cochlear-Implant Excitation Patterns.
    Guérit F; Middlebrooks JC; Gransier R; Richardson ML; Wouters J; Carlyon RP
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2024 Apr; 25(2):201-213. PubMed ID: 38459245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Partial tripolar cochlear implant stimulation: Spread of excitation and forward masking in the inferior colliculus.
    Bierer JA; Bierer SM; Middlebrooks JC
    Hear Res; 2010 Dec; 270(1-2):134-42. PubMed ID: 20727397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reduction in spread of excitation from current focusing at multiple cochlear locations in cochlear implant users.
    Padilla M; Landsberger DM
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():98-107. PubMed ID: 26778546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Excitation Patterns of Standard and Steered Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants.
    Wu CC; Luo X
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Apr; 17(2):145-58. PubMed ID: 26691160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
    Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
    Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measurements of monopolar and bipolar current spreads using forward-masking with a fixed probe.
    Bingabr MG; Espinoza-Varas B; Sigdel S
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 May; 15(3):166-72. PubMed ID: 24606491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Place specificity of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implants: the influence of residual masking.
    Fielden CA; Kluk K; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4109-23. PubMed ID: 23742363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Spatial Selectivity in Cochlear Implants: Effects of Asymmetric Waveforms and Development of a Single-Point Measure.
    Carlyon RP; Deeks JM; Undurraga J; Macherey O; van Wieringen A
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2017 Oct; 18(5):711-727. PubMed ID: 28755309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Simulating the dual-peak excitation pattern produced by bipolar stimulation of a cochlear implant: effects on speech intelligibility.
    Mesnildrey Q; Macherey O
    Hear Res; 2015 Jan; 319():32-47. PubMed ID: 25449010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Symmetric Electrode Spanning Narrows the Excitation Patterns of Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants.
    Luo X; Wu CC
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Dec; 17(6):609-619. PubMed ID: 27562804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Place specificity measured in forward and interleaved masking in cochlear implants.
    Azadpour M; AlJasser A; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):EL314-20. PubMed ID: 24116536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients.
    Chatterjee M; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Shannon RV
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Mar; 7(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 16270234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners.
    Kwon BJ; van den Honert C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 May; 119(5 Pt 1):2994-3002. PubMed ID: 16708955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers.
    Dingemanse JG; Frijns JH; Briaire JJ
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):645-57. PubMed ID: 17086076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Spatial and temporal effects of interleaved masking in cochlear implants.
    Kwon BJ; van den Honert C
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2009 Sep; 10(3):447-57. PubMed ID: 19495879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Stille LJ
    Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):679-92. PubMed ID: 20505513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.