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

221 related items for PubMed ID: 7968864

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.
    Stohl JS, Throckmorton CS, Collins LM.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. The University of Melbourne--nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant.
    Clark GM, Blamey PJ, Brown AM, Gusby PA, Dowell RC, Franz BK, Pyman BC, Shepherd RK, Tong YC, Webb RL.
    Adv Otorhinolaryngol; 1987 Feb; 38():V-IX, 1-181. PubMed ID: 3318305
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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]

  • 6. Effects of pulse width, pulse rate and paired electrode stimulation on psychophysical measures of dynamic range and speech recognition in cochlear implants.
    Bonnet RM, Boermans PP, Avenarius OF, Briaire JJ, Frijns JH.
    Ear Hear; 2012 Sep; 33(4):489-96. PubMed ID: 22517184
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Place-pitch and vowel-pitch comparisons in cochlear implant patients using the Melbourne-Nucleus cochlear implant.
    Pauka CK.
    J Laryngol Otol Suppl; 1989 Sep; 19():1-31. PubMed ID: 2693565
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Timbre discrimination in cochlear implant users and normal hearing subjects using cross-faded synthetic tones.
    Rahne T, Böhme L, Götze G.
    J Neurosci Methods; 2011 Aug 15; 199(2):290-5. PubMed ID: 21664377
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 13. 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]

  • 14. Rate pitch discrimination in cochlear implant users with the use of double pulses and different interpulse intervals.
    Pieper SH, Bahmer A.
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2019 Nov 12; 20(6):312-323. PubMed ID: 31448701
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 16. Perceptual dissimilarities among acoustic stimuli and ipsilateral electric stimuli.
    McDermott HJ, Sucher CM.
    Hear Res; 2006 Aug 12; 218(1-2):81-8. PubMed ID: 16777362
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Comparison of two frequency-to-electrode maps for acoustic-electric stimulation.
    Simpson A, McDermott HJ, Dowell RC, Sucher C, Briggs RJ.
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Feb 12; 48(2):63-73. PubMed ID: 19219690
    [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 12.