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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11385182)

  • 1. Contralateral masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the non-implanted ear.
    James C; Blamey P; Shallop JK; Incerti PV; Nicholas AM
    Audiol Neurootol; 2001; 6(2):87-97. PubMed ID: 11385182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Pure-Tone Masking Patterns for Monopolar and Phantom Electrical Stimulation in Cochlear Implants.
    Saoji AA; Koka K; Litvak LM; Finley CC
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):124-130. PubMed ID: 28700446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
    Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
    Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing.
    Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():185-196. PubMed ID: 28688755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
    Williges B; Dietz M; Hohmann V; Jürgens T
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers.
    Dingemanse JG; Frijns JH; Briaire JJ
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):645-57. PubMed ID: 17086076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Across- and within-channel envelope interactions in cochlear implant listeners.
    Chatterjee M; Oba SI
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Dec; 5(4):360-75. PubMed ID: 15675001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Central masking with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Lin P; Lu T; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Feb; 133(2):962-9. PubMed ID: 23363113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Changing stimulation patterns can change the broadness of contralateral masking functions for bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Lee DH; Aronoff JM
    Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():55-61. PubMed ID: 29548706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant listeners under forward masking conditions.
    Chatterjee M; Kulkarni AM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Feb; 143(2):1117. PubMed ID: 29495705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Psychophysical recovery from pulse-train forward masking in electric hearing.
    Nelson DA; Donaldson GS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Dec; 112(6):2932-47. PubMed ID: 12509014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Monaural and binaural loudness measures in cochlear implant users with contralateral residual hearing.
    Blamey PJ; Dooley GJ; James CJ; Parisi ES
    Ear Hear; 2000 Feb; 21(1):6-17. PubMed ID: 10708069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Does acoustic fundamental frequency information enhance cochlear implant performance?
    Mulhern L; Cullington H
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 Mar; 15(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 24597637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of pulse phase duration on forward masking and spread of excitation in cochlear implant listeners.
    Zhou N; Zhu Z; Dong L; Galvin JJ
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(7):e0236179. PubMed ID: 32687516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comodulation masking release induced by controlled electrical stimulation of auditory nerve fibers.
    Zirn S; Hempel JM; Schuster M; Hemmert W
    Hear Res; 2013 Feb; 296():60-6. PubMed ID: 23220120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.