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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22146425)

  • 1. Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues.
    Fraser M; McKay CM
    Hear Res; 2012 Jan; 283(1-2):59-69. PubMed ID: 22146425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Detection and rate discrimination of amplitude modulation in electrical hearing.
    Chatterjee M; Oberzut C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1567-80. PubMed ID: 21895095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Perception of stochastic envelopes by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.
    Gomersall PA; Turner RE; Baguley DM; Deeks JM; Gockel HE; Carlyon RP
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():8-24. PubMed ID: 26706708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users.
    Anderson ES; Oxenham AJ; Nelson PB; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Dec; 132(6):3925-34. PubMed ID: 23231122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners.
    Won JH; Drennan WR; Nie K; Jameyson EM; Rubinstein JT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):376-88. PubMed ID: 21786906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of electrode configuration on cochlear implant modulation detection thresholds.
    Pfingst BE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3908-15. PubMed ID: 21682413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Detection of acoustic temporal fine structure by cochlear implant listeners: behavioral results and computational modeling.
    Imennov NS; Won JH; Drennan WR; Jameyson E; Rubinstein JT
    Hear Res; 2013 Apr; 298():60-72. PubMed ID: 23333260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evidence of across-channel processing for spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant listeners.
    Won JH; Jones GL; Drennan WR; Jameyson EM; Rubinstein JT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2088-97. PubMed ID: 21973363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Discrimination between sequential and simultaneous virtual channels with electrical hearing.
    Landsberger D; Galvin JJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1559-66. PubMed ID: 21895094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A method to dynamically control unwanted loudness cues when measuring amplitude modulation detection in cochlear implant users.
    Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Oba S; Başkent D
    J Neurosci Methods; 2014 Jan; 222():207-12. PubMed ID: 24269251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Training improves cochlear implant rate discrimination on a psychophysical task.
    Goldsworthy RL; Shannon RV
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):334-41. PubMed ID: 24437773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Spectro-temporal cues enhance modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant users.
    Zheng Y; Escabí M; Litovsky RY
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():45-54. PubMed ID: 28601530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users.
    Nelson DA; Kreft HA; Anderson ES; Donaldson GS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3916-33. PubMed ID: 21682414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Contour identification with pitch and loudness cues using cochlear implants.
    Luo X; Masterson ME; Wu CC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):EL8-14. PubMed ID: 24437857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Characterizing the relationship between modulation sensitivity and pitch resolution in cochlear implant users.
    Camarena A; Goldsworthy RL
    Hear Res; 2024 Jul; 448():109026. PubMed ID: 38776706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sensitivity of bilateral cochlear implant users to fine-structure and envelope interaural time differences.
    Noel VA; Eddington DK
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2314-28. PubMed ID: 23556598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Amplitude modulation and loudness in cochlear implantees.
    McKay CM; Henshall KR
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2010 Mar; 11(1):101-11. PubMed ID: 19798533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Pitch and loudness matching of unmodulated and modulated stimuli in cochlear implantees.
    Vandali A; Sly D; Cowan R; van Hoesel R
    Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 302():32-49. PubMed ID: 23685148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Variations in carrier pulse rate and the perception of amplitude modulation in cochlear implant users.
    Green T; Faulkner A; Rosen S
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):221-30. PubMed ID: 22367093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Modulation frequency discrimination with single and multiple channels in cochlear implant users.
    Galvin JJ; Oba S; Başkent D; Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2015 Jun; 324():7-18. PubMed ID: 25746914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.