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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9288477)

  • 1. Pulse rate matching by cochlear implant patients: effects of loudness randomization and electrode position.
    Pijl S
    Ear Hear; 1997 Aug; 18(4):316-25. PubMed ID: 9288477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Pitch and loudness estimation for single and multiple pulse per period electric pulse rates by cochlear implant patients.
    Busby PA; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Mar; 101(3):1687-95. PubMed ID: 9069636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration.
    Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2005 Apr; 202(1-2):55-62. PubMed ID: 15811699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
    Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pitch matching in bimodal cochlear implant patients: Effects of frequency, spectral envelope, and level.
    Maarefvand M; Blamey PJ; Marozeau J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Nov; 142(5):2854. PubMed ID: 29195427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Loudness summation for pulsatile electrical stimulation of the cochlea: effects of rate, electrode separation, level, and mode of stimulation.
    McKay CM; Remine MD; McDermott HJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Sep; 110(3 Pt 1):1514-24. PubMed ID: 11572362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients.
    Saoji AA; Litvak LM; Hughes ML
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):559-67. PubMed ID: 19617837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Qualities of Single Electrode Stimulation as a Function of Rate and Place of Stimulation with a Cochlear Implant.
    Landsberger DM; Vermeire K; Claes A; Van Rompaey V; Van de Heyning P
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):e149-59. PubMed ID: 26583480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Binaural timing information in electric hearing at low rates: Effects of inaccurate encoding and loudness.
    Egger K; Majdak P; Laback B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):3164. PubMed ID: 28599571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: effects on loudness growth.
    Hong RS; Rubinstein JT
    Otol Neurotol; 2006 Jan; 27(1):50-6. PubMed ID: 16371847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing.
    Nelson DA; Van Tasell DJ; Schroder AC; Soli S; Levine S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1995 Oct; 98(4):1987-99. PubMed ID: 7593921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cochlear Implant Rate Pitch and Melody Perception as a Function of Place and Number of Electrodes.
    Marimuthu V; Swanson BA; Mannell R
    Trends Hear; 2016 Apr; 20():. PubMed ID: 27094028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Binaural Pitch Fusion in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.
    Reiss LAJ; Fowler JR; Hartling CL; Oh Y
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(2):390-397. PubMed ID: 28945657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effects of phase duration and pulse rate on loudness and pitch percepts in the first auditory midbrain implant patients: Comparison to cochlear implant and auditory brainstem implant results.
    Lim HH; Lenarz T; Joseph G; Battmer RD; Patrick JF; Lenarz M
    Neuroscience; 2008 Jun; 154(1):370-80. PubMed ID: 18384971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting.
    Gani M; Valentini G; Sigrist A; Kós MI; Boëx C
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2007 Mar; 8(1):69-83. PubMed ID: 17216585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Electro-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant: Is there a need for adjustment of the default frequency allocation tables?
    Peters JPM; Bennink E; Grolman W; van Zanten GA
    Hear Res; 2016 Dec; 342():124-133. PubMed ID: 27789255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of two loudness balancing tasks in cochlear implant subjects using bipolar stimulation.
    Throckmorton CS; Collins LM
    Ear Hear; 2001 Oct; 22(5):439-48. PubMed ID: 11605951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.