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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17297794)

  • 1. Evaluation of multichannel reproduced sound: scaling auditory attributes underlying listener preference.
    Choisel S; Wickelmaier F
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Jan; 121(1):388-400. PubMed ID: 17297794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Concert hall acoustics assessment with individually elicited attributes.
    Lokki T; Patynen J; Kuusinen A; Vertanen H; Tervo S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Aug; 130(2):835-49. PubMed ID: 21877799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of background music on musical task performance and subsequent music preference.
    Geringer JM; Nelson JK
    Percept Mot Skills; 1979 Aug; 49(1):39-45. PubMed ID: 503757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of prenatal species-specific and music stimulation on the postnatal auditory preference of domestic chick.
    Jain S; Sharma R; Wadhwa S
    Indian J Physiol Pharmacol; 2004 Apr; 48(2):174-83. PubMed ID: 15521556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Individual differences reveal the basis of consonance.
    McDermott JH; Lehr AJ; Oxenham AJ
    Curr Biol; 2010 Jun; 20(11):1035-41. PubMed ID: 20493704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effects of auditory perception and musical preference on anxiety in naive human subjects.
    Salamon E; Bernstein SR; Kim SA; Kim M; Stefano GB
    Med Sci Monit; 2003 Sep; 9(9):CR396-9. PubMed ID: 12960929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Psychoacoustic evaluation of multichannel reproduced sounds using binaural synthesis and spherical beamforming.
    Song W; Ellermeier W; Hald J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2063-75. PubMed ID: 21973361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the relative importance of spatial and timbral fidelities in judgments of degraded multichannel audio quality.
    Rumsey F; Zieliński S; Kassier R; Bech S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Aug; 118(2):968-76. PubMed ID: 16158652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Relationships between preference ratings, sensory profiles, and acoustical measurements in concert halls.
    Kuusinen A; Pätynen J; Tervo S; Lokki T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):239-50. PubMed ID: 24437764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A listener preference model for spatial sound reproduction, incorporating affective response.
    Moiragias G; Mourjopoulos J
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(6):e0285135. PubMed ID: 37315025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Musical consonance: the importance of harmonicity.
    Plack CJ
    Curr Biol; 2010 Jun; 20(11):R476-8. PubMed ID: 20541492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Auditory discrimination of force of impact.
    Lutfi RA; Liu CJ; Stoelinga CN
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Apr; 129(4):2104-11. PubMed ID: 21476666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dichotic Listening Can Improve Perceived Clarity of Music in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Vannson N; Innes-Brown H; Marozeau J
    Trends Hear; 2015 Aug; 19():. PubMed ID: 26316123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Prior experience biases subcortical sensitivity to sound patterns.
    Skoe E; Krizman J; Spitzer E; Kraus N
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2015 Jan; 27(1):124-40. PubMed ID: 25061926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The bimusical brain is not two monomusical brains in one: evidence from musical affective processing.
    Wong PC; Chan AH; Roy A; Margulis EH
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 Dec; 23(12):4082-93. PubMed ID: 21812560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Music preferences with hearing aids: effects of signal properties, compression settings, and listener characteristics.
    Croghan NB; Arehart KH; Kates JM
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(5):e170-84. PubMed ID: 25010635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication with auditory stimulation.
    Cook JL; Baruni RR; Pinkston JW; Rapp JT; Miltenberger RG; Deshmukh S; Walker E; Tai S
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2024 Jul; 122(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 38724460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Perceptual evaluation of violins: a quantitative analysis of preference judgments by experienced players.
    Saitis C; Giordano BL; Fritz C; Scavone GP
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Dec; 132(6):4002-12. PubMed ID: 23231129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Isolating the dynamic attributes of musical timbre.
    Iverson P; Krumhansl CL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Nov; 94(5):2595-603. PubMed ID: 8270737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A biological rationale for musical consonance.
    Bowling DL; Purves D
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2015 Sep; 112(36):11155-60. PubMed ID: 26209651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.