213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11831802)
1. Effects of reversible noise exposure on the suppression tuning of rabbit distortion-product otoacoustic emissions.
Howard MA; Stagner BB; Lonsbury-Martin BL; Martin GK
J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Jan; 111(1 Pt 1):285-96. PubMed ID: 11831802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of loop diuretics on the suppression tuning of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in rabbits.
Martin GK; Jassir D; Stagner BB; Lonsbury-Martin BL
J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Aug; 104(2 Pt 1):972-83. PubMed ID: 9714917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Distortion product otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves in human adults and neonates.
Abdala C; Sininger YS; Ekelid M; Zeng FG
Hear Res; 1996 Sep; 98(1-2):38-53. PubMed ID: 8880180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Suppression tuning in noise-exposed rabbits.
Howard MA; Stagner BB; Foster PK; Lonsbury-Martin BL; Martin GK
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Jul; 114(1):279-93. PubMed ID: 12880041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluating cochlear function and the effects of noise exposure in the B6.CAST+Ahl mouse with distortion product otoacoustic emissions.
Vázquez AE; Jimenez AM; Martin GK; Luebke AE; Lonsbury-Martin BL
Hear Res; 2004 Aug; 194(1-2):87-96. PubMed ID: 15276680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Frequency responses of two- and three-tone distortion product otoacoustic emissions in Mongolian gerbils.
Mills DM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 May; 107(5 Pt 1):2586-602. PubMed ID: 10830382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The shape of 2f1-f2 suppression tuning curves reflects basilar membrane specializations in the mustached bat, Pteronotus parnellii.
Frank G; Kössl M
Hear Res; 1995 Mar; 83(1-2):151-60. PubMed ID: 7607981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Locus of generation for the 2f1-f2 vs 2f2-f1 distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing humans revealed by suppression tuning, onset latencies, and amplitude correlations.
Martin GK; Jassir D; Stagner BB; Whitehead ML; Lonsbury-Martin BL
J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Apr; 103(4):1957-71. PubMed ID: 9566319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Distortion-product otoacoustic emission suppression growth in normal and noise-exposed rabbits.
Porter CA; Martin GK; Stagner BB; Lonsbury-Martin BL
J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Aug; 120(2):884-900. PubMed ID: 16938977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The effect of various durations of noise exposure on auditory brainstem response, distortion product otoacoustic emissions and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in rats.
Fraenkel R; Freeman S; Sohmer H
Audiol Neurootol; 2001; 6(1):40-9. PubMed ID: 11173774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Suppression tuning characteristics of the 2f1-f2 distortion product in cochlear microphonics and otoacoustic emissions].
Fujimura K; Yoshida M; Makishima K
Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho; 1997 Aug; 100(8):839-45. PubMed ID: 9293764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The development of cochlear frequency resolution in the human auditory system.
Abdala C; Sininger YS
Ear Hear; 1996 Oct; 17(5):374-85. PubMed ID: 8909885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Suppression and enhancement of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions by interference tones above f(2). II. Findings in humans.
Martin GK; Villasuso EI; Stagner BB; Lonsbury-Martin BL
Hear Res; 2003 Mar; 177(1-2):111-22. PubMed ID: 12618323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. DPOAE suppression tuning: cochlear immaturity in premature neonates or auditory aging in normal-hearing adults?
Abdala C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Dec; 110(6):3155-62. PubMed ID: 11785816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cochlear sensitivity in the lesser spear-nosed bat, Phyllostomus discolor.
Wittekindt A; Drexl M; Kössl M
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2005 Jan; 191(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 15378333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Sensitivity of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in humans to tonal over-exposure: time course of recovery and effects of lowering L2.
Sutton LA; Lonsbury-Martin BL; Martin GK; Whitehead ML
Hear Res; 1994 May; 75(1-2):161-74. PubMed ID: 8071143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Suppression tuning of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in the barn owl (Tyto alba).
Engler S; Köppl C; Manley GA; de Kleine E; van Dijk P
Hear Res; 2020 Jan; 385():107835. PubMed ID: 31710933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effects of continuous versus interrupted noise exposures on distortion product otoacoustic emissions in guinea pigs.
Chang KW; Norton SJ
Hear Res; 1996 Jul; 96(1-2):1-12. PubMed ID: 8817301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of primary frequencies ratio on distortion product otoacoustic emissions amplitude. II. Interrelations between multicomponent DPOAEs, tone-burst-evoked OAEs, and spontaneous OAEs.
Moulin A
J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Mar; 107(3):1471-86. PubMed ID: 10738802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Maturation of the human cochlear amplifier: distortion product otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves recorded at low and high primary tone levels.
Abdala C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Sep; 110(3 Pt 1):1465-76. PubMed ID: 11572357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
