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
105 related items for PubMed ID: 3210875
1. [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; 67(8):412-5. PubMed ID: 3210875 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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; 125(7):732-5. PubMed ID: 16012035 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. [Loudness scaling in cochlear implant patients within the scope of preoperative evaluation]. Müller J, Schön F. Laryngorhinootologie; 1994 Mar; 73(3):128-31. PubMed ID: 8172631 [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. [Experiences with the implantation of a multichannel electrode in the acoustic nerve]. Naumann HH, Zwicker E, Scherer H, Seifert J, Leysieffer H, Zollner M. Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg); 1986 Mar 12; 65(3):118-22. PubMed ID: 3754920 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. [The promontory test and electrocochleography with reference to indications for cochlear implant]. Battmer RD, Lehnhardt E, Laszig R. HNO; 1986 Apr 12; 34(4):139-42. PubMed ID: 3754857 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients. Saoji AA, Litvak LM, Hughes ML. Ear Hear; 2009 Oct 12; 30(5):559-67. PubMed ID: 19617837 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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 12; 220(1-2):49-60. PubMed ID: 16904278 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. [Preliminary studies of deaf patients assessed for cochlear implantation]. Schorn K, Seifert J, Stecker M, Zollner M. Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg); 1986 Mar 12; 65(3):114-7. PubMed ID: 3012229 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 1. Growth of loudness and ECAP amplitude with current. Cohen LT. Hear Res; 2009 Jan 12; 247(2):87-99. PubMed ID: 19063956 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. [Correlation between electrically-induced stapedius reflex and discomfort threshold in cochlear implant patients]. Gattaz G, Battmer RD, Lehnhardt E, Gnadeberg D. HNO; 1992 Dec 12; 40(12):480-3. PubMed ID: 1493968 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The role of intensity upon pitch perception in cochlear implant recipients. Arnoldner C, Kaider A, Hamzavi J. Laryngoscope; 2006 Oct 12; 116(10):1760-5. PubMed ID: 17003738 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. A longitudinal study of electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance in children using the Clarion cochlear implant. Henkin Y, Kaplan-Neeman R, Kronenberg J, Migirov L, Hildesheimer M, Muchnik C. Acta Otolaryngol; 2006 Jun 12; 126(6):581-6. PubMed ID: 16720441 [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 12; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels. Bierer JA, Nye AD. Ear Hear; 2014 Aug 12; 35(6):641-51. PubMed ID: 25036146 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [Examination to possibilities of a physiological fitting of cochlear implants]. Braunschweig T, Schelhorn-Neise P, Biedermann F, Weisser P. Laryngorhinootologie; 2004 Jun 12; 83(6):387-90. PubMed ID: 15197679 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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 12; 205(1-2):210-24. PubMed ID: 15953530 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Investigations on the tonotopy for patients with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid. Niewiarowicz M, Stieler O. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord); 2005 Jul 12; 126(2):75-80. PubMed ID: 16180345 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Evoked stapedius reflex and compound action potential thresholds versus most comfortable loudness level: assessment of their relation for charge-based fitting strategies in implant users. Walkowiak A, Lorens A, Polak M, Kostek B, Skarzynski H, Szkielkowska A, Skarzynski PH. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2011 Jul 12; 73(4):189-95. PubMed ID: 21659787 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Next] [New Search]