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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1960594)

  • 1. [Acoustic memory of the speech evoked by a 22-channel cochlear implant].
    Kumakawa K
    Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho; 1991 Aug; 94(8):1136-41. PubMed ID: 1960594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evidence of echoic memory with a multichannel cochlear prosthesis.
    Jerger S; Watkins MJ
    Ear Hear; 1988 Oct; 9(5):231-6. PubMed ID: 3224769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Recency and suffix effects in serial recall of musical stimuli.
    Greene RL; Samuel AG
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1986 Oct; 12(4):517-24. PubMed ID: 2945898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Serial recall of two-voice lists: implications for theories of auditory recency and suffix effects.
    Greene RL
    Mem Cognit; 1991 Jan; 19(1):72-8. PubMed ID: 2017031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Some evidence for 'speech' as an acoustic feature.
    Morton J; Chambers SM
    Br J Psychol; 1976 Feb; 67(1):31-45. PubMed ID: 1268450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Can the irrelevant speech effect turn into a stimulus suffix effect?
    Schlittmeier SJ; Hellbrück J; Klatte M
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2008 May; 61(5):665-73. PubMed ID: 18421641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Manipulations of irrelevant information: suffix effects with articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech.
    Surprenant AM; LeCompte DC; Neath I
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2000 May; 53(2):325-48. PubMed ID: 10881609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Children's suffix effects for verbal working memory reflect phonological coding and perceptual grouping.
    Lowenstein JH; Cribb C; Shell P; Yuan Y; Nittrouer S
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2019 Jul; 183():276-294. PubMed ID: 30933869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Similarities between the irrelevant sound effect and the suffix effect.
    Hanley JR; Bourgaize J
    Mem Cognit; 2018 Aug; 46(6):841-848. PubMed ID: 29600481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Modalities of memory: is reading lips like hearing voices?
    Maidment DW; Macken B; Jones DM
    Cognition; 2013 Dec; 129(3):471-93. PubMed ID: 24041834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials Recorded From Nucleus Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.
    Brown CJ; Jeon EK; Chiou LK; Kirby B; Karsten SA; Turner CW; Abbas PJ
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):723-32. PubMed ID: 26295607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Echoic and retrieval accounts of the long-term modality effect tested using the suffix procedure.
    Huang ST; Glenberg AM
    Am J Psychol; 1986; 99(4):453-70. PubMed ID: 3812815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Recency and suffix effects with immediate recall of olfactory stimuli.
    Miles C; Jenkins R
    Memory; 2000 May; 8(3):195-205. PubMed ID: 10889902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The modality effect and echoic persistence.
    Watkins OC; Watkins MJ
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 1980 Sep; 109(3):251-78. PubMed ID: 6447188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
    Galvin KL; Mok M; Dowell RC
    Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):470-82. PubMed ID: 17609610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Simulation of speech perception with cochlear implants : Influence of frequency and level of fundamental frequency components with electronic acoustic stimulation].
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    HNO; 2017 Mar; 65(3):237-242. PubMed ID: 27670421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Event-related potentials for better speech perception in noise by cochlear implant users.
    Soshi T; Hisanaga S; Kodama N; Kanekama Y; Samejima Y; Yumoto E; Sekiyama K
    Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 316():110-21. PubMed ID: 25158303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Degradation of labial information modifies audiovisual speech perception in cochlear-implanted children.
    Huyse A; Berthommier F; Leybaert J
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):110-21. PubMed ID: 23059850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Functional benefits of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children with long inter-stage interval between two implants.
    Kim JS; Kim LS; Jeong SW
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2013 Feb; 77(2):162-9. PubMed ID: 23137855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Suffix interference in the recall of linguistically coherent speech.
    Balota DA; Cowan N; Engle RW
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1990 May; 16(3):446-56. PubMed ID: 2140403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.