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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

261 related items for PubMed ID: 16904278

  • 1. Effects of pulse rate on thresholds and loudness of biphasic and alternating monophasic pulse trains in electrical hearing.
    van Wieringen A, Carlyon RP, Macherey O, Wouters J.
    Hear Res; 2006 Oct; 220(1-2):49-60. PubMed ID: 16904278
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Effect of inter-phase gap on the sensitivity of cochlear implant users to electrical stimulation.
    Carlyon RP, van Wieringen A, Deeks JM, Long CJ, Lyzenga J, Wouters J.
    Hear Res; 2005 Jul; 205(1-2):210-24. PubMed ID: 15953530
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Effects of waveform shape on human sensitivity to electrical stimulation of the inner ear.
    van Wieringen A, Carlyon RP, Laneau J, Wouters J.
    Hear Res; 2005 Feb; 200(1-2):73-86. PubMed ID: 15668040
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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 12; 154(1):370-80. PubMed ID: 18384971
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Comparisons between neural response imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII bionic ear users with HiResolution sound processing strategies.
    Han DM, Chen XQ, Zhao XT, Kong Y, Li YX, Liu S, Liu B, Mo LY.
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jul 12; 125(7):732-5. PubMed ID: 16012035
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients.
    Potts LG, Skinner MW, Gotter BD, Strube MJ, Brenner CA.
    Ear Hear; 2007 Aug 12; 28(4):495-511. PubMed ID: 17609612
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Loudness growth in cochlear implants: effect of stimulation rate and electrode configuration.
    Fu QJ.
    Hear Res; 2005 Apr 12; 202(1-2):55-62. PubMed ID: 15811699
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Effects of pulse shape on pitch sensitivity of cochlear implant users.
    Arslan NO, Luo X.
    Hear Res; 2024 Sep 01; 450():109075. PubMed ID: 38986164
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Asymmetric pulses in cochlear implants: effects of pulse shape, polarity, and rate.
    Macherey O, van Wieringen A, Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Wouters J.
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2006 Sep 01; 7(3):253-66. PubMed ID: 16715356
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: II. The influence of neural population on the ECAP recovery function and refractoriness.
    Botros A, Psarros C.
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun 01; 31(3):380-91. PubMed ID: 20090532
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Effects of stimulus manipulation on electrophysiological responses of pediatric cochlear implant users. Part II: rate effects.
    Davids T, Valero J, Papsin BC, Harrison RV, Gordon KA.
    Hear Res; 2008 Oct 01; 244(1-2):15-24. PubMed ID: 18692122
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Effect of Pulse Rate and Polarity on the Sensitivity of Auditory Brainstem and Cochlear Implant Users to Electrical Stimulation.
    Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, McKay CM.
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Oct 01; 16(5):653-68. PubMed ID: 26138501
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Effects of programming threshold and maplaw settings on acoustic thresholds and speech discrimination with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ cochlear implant.
    Boyd PJ.
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec 01; 27(6):608-18. PubMed ID: 17086073
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. [Changes in the hearing and discomfort thresholds in patients with the Clark/nucleus inner ear prosthesis].
    Battmer RD, Lehnhardt E, Laszig R.
    Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg); 1988 Aug 01; 67(8):412-5. PubMed ID: 3210875
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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 01; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Threshold predictions of different pulse shapes using a human auditory nerve fibre model containing persistent sodium and slow potassium currents.
    Smit JE, Hanekom T, van Wieringen A, Wouters J, Hanekom JJ.
    Hear Res; 2010 Oct 01; 269(1-2):12-22. PubMed ID: 20708672
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.
    Bierer JA, Nye AD.
    Ear Hear; 2014 Oct 01; 35(6):641-51. PubMed ID: 25036146
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Auditory steady-state response evaluation of auditory thresholds in cochlear implant patients.
    Ménard M, Gallego S, Truy E, Berger-Vachon C, Durrant JD, Collet L.
    Int J Audiol; 2004 Dec 01; 43 Suppl 1():S39-43. PubMed ID: 15732381
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 14.