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 *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39215517)

  • 61. 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]  

  • 62. 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]  

  • 63. Interaural envelope correlation change discrimination in bilateral cochlear implantees: effects of mismatch, centering, and onset of deafness.
    Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1282-97. PubMed ID: 25786942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. 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]  

  • 65. 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]  

  • 66. Bilateral cochlear implants in children: Effects of auditory experience and deprivation on auditory perception.
    Litovsky RY; Gordon K
    Hear Res; 2016 Aug; 338():76-87. PubMed ID: 26828740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. 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]  

  • 68. 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]  

  • 69. 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]  

  • 70. Lateralization of interimplant timing and level differences in children who use bilateral cochlear implants.
    Salloum CA; Valero J; Wong DD; Papsin BC; van Hoesel R; Gordon KA
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):441-56. PubMed ID: 20489647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Perceptual changes with monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation.
    Klawitter S; Landsberger DM; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2018 Mar; 359():64-75. PubMed ID: 29325874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Interaural level differences do not suffice for restoring spatial release from masking in simulated cochlear implant listening.
    Ihlefeld A; Litovsky RY
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e45296. PubMed ID: 23028914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. 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]  

  • 74. Cortical Representation of Interaural Time Difference Is Impaired by Deafness in Development: Evidence from Children with Early Long-term Access to Sound through Bilateral Cochlear Implants Provided Simultaneously.
    Easwar V; Yamazaki H; Deighton M; Papsin B; Gordon K
    J Neurosci; 2017 Mar; 37(9):2349-2361. PubMed ID: 28123078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Rate dependent neural responses of interaural-time-difference cues in fine-structure and envelope.
    Hu H; Ewert SD; Kollmeier B; Vickers D
    PeerJ; 2024; 12():e17104. PubMed ID: 38680894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Lateralization of interaural time differences with mixed rates of stimulation in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
    Thakkar T; Kan A; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2023 Mar; 153(3):1912. PubMed ID: 37002065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Dynamic current steering with phantom electrode in cochlear implants.
    Luo X; Garrett C
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107949. PubMed ID: 32200300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Determining the minimum number of electrodes that need to be pitch matched to accurately estimate pitch matches across the array.
    Stelmach J; Landsberger DM; Padilla M; Aronoff JM
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Nov; 56(11):894-899. PubMed ID: 28697658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Precedence based speech segregation in bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Hossain S; Montazeri V; Assmann PF; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):EL545-50. PubMed ID: 26723365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Horizontal sound localization in cochlear implant users with a contralateral hearing aid.
    Veugen LCE; Hendrikse MME; van Wanrooij MM; Agterberg MJH; Chalupper J; Mens LHM; Snik AFM; John van Opstal A
    Hear Res; 2016 Jun; 336():72-82. PubMed ID: 27178443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.