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 *

67 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19894836)

  • 1. A simple single-interval adaptive procedure for estimating thresholds in normal and impaired listeners.
    Lecluyse W; Meddis R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):2570-9. PubMed ID: 19894836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Broadband auditory stream segregation by hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners.
    Valentine S; Lentz JJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1341-52. PubMed ID: 18664686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Freyaldenhoven MC; Plyler PN; Thelin JW; Hedrick MS
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Aug; 50(4):878-85. PubMed ID: 17675593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The psychoacoustics of profound hearing impairment.
    Rosen S; Faulkner A; Smith DA
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():16-22. PubMed ID: 2356723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evidence for adaptive plasticity in elderly monaural hearing aid users.
    Munro KJ; Walker AJ; Purdy SC
    Neuroreport; 2007 Aug; 18(12):1237-40. PubMed ID: 17632274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Timbre discrimination in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners under different noise conditions.
    Emiroglu S; Kollmeier B
    Brain Res; 2008 Jul; 1220():199-207. PubMed ID: 17991457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A cautionary note on the use of the adaptive up-down method.
    García-Pérez MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2098-107. PubMed ID: 21973364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners' performance on the connected speech test.
    Sherbecoe RL; Studebaker GA
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):71-88. PubMed ID: 12598814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Determining the cause of hearing loss: differential diagnosis using a comparison of audiometric and otoacoustic emission responses.
    Mills DM
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):508-25. PubMed ID: 16957501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Toward a theory of optimal hearing aid processing.
    Kates JM
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):39-48. PubMed ID: 8263828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reaction time to 1- and 4-kHz tones as a function of sensation level in listeners with normal hearing.
    Epstein M; Florentine M
    Ear Hear; 2006 Aug; 27(4):424-9. PubMed ID: 16825891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of cochlear impairment and equivalent-threshold masking on psychoacoustic tuning curves.
    Florentine M
    Audiology; 1992; 31(5):241-53. PubMed ID: 1449429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. High-level psychophysical tuning curves: forward masking in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Nelson DA
    J Speech Hear Res; 1991 Dec; 34(6):1233-49. PubMed ID: 1787705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Perception of clear fricatives by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners.
    Maniwa K; Jongman A; Wade T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1114-25. PubMed ID: 18247912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of adaptive procedures for rapid and reliable threshold assessment and training in naive listeners.
    Amitay S; Irwin A; Hawkey DJ; Cowan JA; Moore DR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Mar; 119(3):1616-25. PubMed ID: 16583906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Adaptive staircase techniques in psychoacoustics: a comparison of human data and a mathematical model.
    Kollmeier B; Gilkey RH; Sieben UK
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1988 May; 83(5):1852-62. PubMed ID: 3403801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of Levitt- and Zwislocki-type adaptive procedures for stimulus placement in human listeners.
    Rowan D; Hinton K; Mackenzie E
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Jun; 119(6):3538-41. PubMed ID: 16838494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Logarithmic Versus Linear Change in Step Size When Using an Adaptive Threshold-Seeking Procedure in a Frequency Discrimination Task: Does It Matter?
    Zaltz Y; Roth DA; Amir N; Kishon-Rabin L
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2019 Oct; 62(10):3887-3900. PubMed ID: 31618120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The single interval adjustment matrix (SIAM) yes-no task: an empirical assessment using auditory and gustatory stimuli.
    Shepherd D; Hautus MJ; Stocks MA; Quek SY
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2011 Aug; 73(6):1934-47. PubMed ID: 21533962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.