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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19495879)

  • 1. Spatial and temporal effects of interleaved masking in cochlear implants.
    Kwon BJ; van den Honert C
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2009 Sep; 10(3):447-57. PubMed ID: 19495879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Procedural Factors That Affect Psychophysical Measures of Spatial Selectivity in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Cosentino S; Deeks JM; Carlyon RP
    Trends Hear; 2015 Sep; 19():. PubMed ID: 26420785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Temporal masking in electric hearing.
    Zeng FG; Chen H; Han S
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2005 Dec; 6(4):390-400. PubMed ID: 16261267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Place specificity measured in forward and interleaved masking in cochlear implants.
    Azadpour M; AlJasser A; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):EL314-20. PubMed ID: 24116536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Stille LJ
    Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):679-92. PubMed ID: 20505513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Stille LJ
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):435-52. PubMed ID: 18344869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Pattern recognition and masking in cochlear implant patients.
    Blamey PJ; Dooley GJ
    Prog Brain Res; 1993; 97():271-8. PubMed ID: 8234753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of stimulus level and rate on psychophysical thresholds for interleaved pulse trains in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Goehring JL; Baudhuin JL; Schmid KK
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Oct; 140(4):2297. PubMed ID: 27794318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Aided growth of masking for speech and nonspeech signals.
    Fortune T
    Ear Hear; 1999 Jun; 20(3):214-27. PubMed ID: 10386848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Place specificity of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implants: the influence of residual masking.
    Fielden CA; Kluk K; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4109-23. PubMed ID: 23742363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Measurements of monopolar and bipolar current spreads using forward-masking with a fixed probe.
    Bingabr MG; Espinoza-Varas B; Sigdel S
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 May; 15(3):166-72. PubMed ID: 24606491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.