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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8647732)

  • 61. Electrically-evoked frequency-following response (EFFR) in the auditory brainstem of guinea pigs.
    He W; Ding X; Zhang R; Chen J; Zhang D; Wu X
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(9):e106719. PubMed ID: 25244253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Auditory detection and discrimination in deaf cats: psychophysical and neural thresholds for intracochlear electrical signals.
    Vollmer M; Beitel RE; Snyder RL
    J Neurophysiol; 2001 Nov; 86(5):2330-43. PubMed ID: 11698523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Impact of modulating phase duration on electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses obtained during cochlear implantation.
    Bonne NX; Douchement D; Hosana G; Desruelles J; Fayoux P; Ruzza I; Vincent C
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 May; 16(3):168-74. PubMed ID: 25167217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Development of an electrode for the artificial cochlear sensory epithelium.
    Tona Y; Inaoka T; Ito J; Kawano S; Nakagawa T
    Hear Res; 2015 Dec; 330(Pt A):106-12. PubMed ID: 26299844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. The relationship between electrical auditory brainstem responses and perceptual thresholds in Digisonic® SP cochlear implant users.
    Guenser G; Laudanski J; Phillipon B; Backus BC; Bordure P; Romanet P; Parietti-Winkler C
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Jan; 16(1):32-8. PubMed ID: 24855994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Effects of delayed treatment with combined GDNF and continuous electrical stimulation on spiral ganglion cell survival in deafened guinea pigs.
    Scheper V; Paasche G; Miller JM; Warnecke A; Berkingali N; Lenarz T; Stöver T
    J Neurosci Res; 2009 May; 87(6):1389-99. PubMed ID: 19084902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Effect of stimulation parameters on electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses.
    Tavartkiladze GA; Potalova LA; Kruglov AV; Belov A
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2000 Mar; 120(2):214-7. PubMed ID: 11603775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Interactions between pulse separation and pulse polarity order in cochlear implants.
    Miller AL; Morris DJ; Pfingst BE
    Hear Res; 1997 Jul; 109(1-2):21-33. PubMed ID: 9259233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Electrophysiologic effects following acute intracochlear direct current stimulation of the guinea pig cochlea.
    Tykocinski M; Shepherd RK; Clark GM
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():68-71. PubMed ID: 7668761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Reduction in excitability of the auditory nerve following electrical stimulation at high stimulus rates. IV. Effects of stimulus intensity.
    Huang CQ; Shepherd RK
    Hear Res; 1999 Jun; 132(1-2):60-8. PubMed ID: 10392548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Auditory brainstem implant: electrophysiologic responses and subject perception.
    Herrmann BS; Brown MC; Eddington DK; Hancock KE; Lee DJ
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):368-76. PubMed ID: 25437141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Electrophysiologic effects of placing cochlear implant electrodes in a perimodiolar position in young children.
    Wackym PA; Firszt JB; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Reeder RM; Raulie JC
    Laryngoscope; 2004 Jan; 114(1):71-6. PubMed ID: 14709998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Neuronal responses in cat primary auditory cortex to electrical cochlear stimulation. I. Intensity dependence of firing rate and response latency.
    Raggio MW; Schreiner CE
    J Neurophysiol; 1994 Nov; 72(5):2334-59. PubMed ID: 7884463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response-based evaluation of the spatial distribution of auditory neuronal tissue in common cavity deformities.
    Yamazaki H; Naito Y; Fujiwara K; Moroto S; Yamamoto R; Yamazaki T; Sasaki I
    Otol Neurotol; 2014 Sep; 35(8):1394-402. PubMed ID: 24770408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. A Cochlear Implant Performance Prognostic Test Based on Electrical Field Interactions Evaluated by eABR (Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses).
    Guevara N; Hoen M; Truy E; Gallego S
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(5):e0155008. PubMed ID: 27149268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users.
    Zhou N; Xu L; Pfingst BE
    Hear Res; 2012 Feb; 284(1-2):25-32. PubMed ID: 22245714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Effects of deafening and cochlear implantation procedures on postimplantation psychophysical electrical detection thresholds.
    Su GL; Colesa DJ; Pfingst BE
    Hear Res; 2008 Jul; 241(1-2):64-72. PubMed ID: 18558467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Electrophysiological mapping of the cochlear nucleus with multi-channel bipolar surface microelectrodes.
    Oda K; Kawase T; Yamauchi D; Hidaka H; Kobayashi T
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2013 Mar; 270(3):869-74. PubMed ID: 22692697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Ramped pulse shapes are more efficient for cochlear implant stimulation in an animal model.
    Navntoft CA; Marozeau J; Barkat TR
    Sci Rep; 2020 Feb; 10(1):3288. PubMed ID: 32094368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Psychophysical threshold variability in cochlear implant subjects.
    Ferguson WD; Collins LM; Smith DW
    Hear Res; 2003 Jun; 180(1-2):101-13. PubMed ID: 12782358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.