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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20571259)

  • 1. Sensitivity of bimodal listeners to interaural time differences with modulated single- and multiple-channel stimuli.
    Francart T; Lenssen A; Wouters J
    Audiol Neurootol; 2011; 16(2):82-92. PubMed ID: 20571259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Bimodal listeners are not sensitive to interaural time differences in unmodulated low-frequency stimuli (L).
    Lenssen A; Francart T; Brokx J; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3457-60. PubMed ID: 21682370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.
    Baumann U; Rader T; Helbig S; Bahmer A
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):656-62. PubMed ID: 21869623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sensitivity to interaural level and envelope time differences of two bilateral cochlear implant listeners using clinical sound processors.
    Laback B; Pok SM; Baumgartner WD; Deutsch WA; Schmid K
    Ear Hear; 2004 Oct; 25(5):488-500. PubMed ID: 15599195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Objective measure of binaural processing: Acoustic change complex in response to interaural phase differences.
    Fan Y; Gifford RH
    Hear Res; 2024 Jul; 448():109020. PubMed ID: 38763034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sound localization, sound lateralization, and binaural masking level differences in young children with normal hearing.
    Van Deun L; van Wieringen A; Van den Bogaert T; Scherf F; Offeciers FE; Van de Heyning PH; Desloovere C; Dhooge IJ; Deggouj N; De Raeve L; Wouters J
    Ear Hear; 2009 Apr; 30(2):178-90. PubMed ID: 19194296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Differences in the temporal course of interaural time difference sensitivity between acoustic and electric hearing in amplitude modulated stimuli.
    Hu H; Ewert SD; McAlpine D; Dietz M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1862. PubMed ID: 28372072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Enhancement of interaural level differences improves sound localization in bimodal hearing.
    Francart T; Lenssen A; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2817-26. PubMed ID: 22087910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Lateralization of interimplant timing and level differences in children who use bilateral cochlear implants.
    Salloum CA; Valero J; Wong DD; Papsin BC; van Hoesel R; Gordon KA
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):441-56. PubMed ID: 20489647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effect of interaural differences in envelope shape on the perceived location of sounds (L).
    Francart T; Lenssen A; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):611-4. PubMed ID: 22894182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of envelope shape on interaural envelope delay sensitivity in acoustic and electric hearing.
    Laback B; Zimmermann I; Majdak P; Baumgartner WD; Pok SM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1515-29. PubMed ID: 21895091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.
    McDermott H; Sucher C; Simpson A
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14 Suppl 1():2-7. PubMed ID: 19390169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Localization and interaural time difference (ITD) thresholds for cochlear implant recipients with preserved acoustic hearing in the implanted ear.
    Gifford RH; Grantham DW; Sheffield SW; Davis TJ; Dwyer R; Dorman MF
    Hear Res; 2014 Jun; 312():28-37. PubMed ID: 24607490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sound localization and binaural hearing in children with a hearing aid and a cochlear implant.
    Beijen J; Snik AF; Straatman LV; Mylanus EA; Mens LH
    Audiol Neurootol; 2010; 15(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 19451708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Channel Interaction and Current Level Affect Across-Electrode Integration of Interaural Time Differences in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.
    Egger K; Majdak P; Laback B
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2016 Feb; 17(1):55-67. PubMed ID: 26377826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interaural stimulation timing in single sided deaf cochlear implant users.
    Zirn S; Arndt S; Aschendorff A; Wesarg T
    Hear Res; 2015 Oct; 328():148-56. PubMed ID: 26302945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Bilateral cochlear implants in children: binaural unmasking.
    Van Deun L; van Wieringen A; Francart T; Scherf F; Dhooge IJ; Deggouj N; Desloovere C; Van de Heyning PH; Offeciers FE; De Raeve L; Wouters J
    Audiol Neurootol; 2009; 14(4):240-7. PubMed ID: 19141992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Binaural jitter improves interaural time-difference sensitivity of cochlear implantees at high pulse rates.
    Laback B; Majdak P
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2008 Jan; 105(2):814-7. PubMed ID: 18182489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Sound Source Localization by Cochlear Implant Recipients with Normal Hearing in the Contralateral Ear: Effects of Spectral Content and Duration of Listening Experience.
    Dillon MT; Rooth MA; Canfarotta MW; Richter ME; Thompson NJ; Brown KD
    Audiol Neurootol; 2022; 27(6):437-448. PubMed ID: 35439753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Development of a loudness normalisation strategy for combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation.
    Francart T; McDermott HJ
    Hear Res; 2012 Dec; 294(1-2):114-24. PubMed ID: 23000118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.