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

116 related items for PubMed ID: 7668617

  • 1. Event-related potentials with selected electrodes of the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant.
    Ash KR, Shallop JK.
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():163-5. PubMed ID: 7668617
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users.
    Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR.
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2005 Jun; 116(6):1235-46. PubMed ID: 15978485
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. [No Hearing Sensation after cochlear implantation despite successful objective measurement outcome].
    Gärtner L, Büchner A, Joseph G, Neuburger J, Lenarz T.
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2011 Apr; 90(4):224-5. PubMed ID: 21181621
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Musical pitch perception with pulsatile stimulation of single electrodes in patients implanted with the Nucleus cochlear implant.
    Pijl S.
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():224-7. PubMed ID: 7668647
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.
    Busby PA, Battmer RD, Pesch J.
    Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):853-64. PubMed ID: 18633324
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Auditory cortical activation and speech perception in cochlear implant users: effects of implant experience and duration of deafness.
    Green KM, Julyan PJ, Hastings DL, Ramsden RT.
    Hear Res; 2005 Jul; 205(1-2):184-92. PubMed ID: 15953527
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. The Vienna cochlear implant program.
    Burian K, Hochmair-Desoyer IJ, Eisenwort B.
    Otolaryngol Clin North Am; 1986 May; 19(2):313-28. PubMed ID: 3754952
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. The intensity-pitch relation revisited: monopolar versus bipolar cochlear stimulation.
    Arnoldner C, Riss D, Kaider A, Mair A, Wagenblast J, Baumgartner WD, Gstöttner W, Hamzavi JS.
    Laryngoscope; 2008 Sep; 118(9):1630-6. PubMed ID: 18545213
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Evidence for association between perception of electrical stimuli and rehabilitation dynamics in users of the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant.
    Tavartkiladze GA, Frolenkov GI, Mironova EV.
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 1995 Sep; 166():181-4. PubMed ID: 7668627
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Evaluation of evoked potentials to dyadic tones after cochlear implantation.
    Sandmann P, Eichele T, Buechler M, Debener S, Jäncke L, Dillier N, Hugdahl K, Meyer M.
    Brain; 2009 Jul; 132(Pt 7):1967-79. PubMed ID: 19293240
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 6.