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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23556598)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.
    Churchill TH; Kan A; Goupell MJ; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1246. PubMed ID: 25190398
    [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. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Sensitivity of inferior colliculus neurons to interaural time differences in the envelope versus the fine structure with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Smith ZM; Delgutte B
    J Neurophysiol; 2008 May; 99(5):2390-407. PubMed ID: 18287556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
    Gifford RH; Stecker GC
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Perception and coding of interaural time differences with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Laback B; Egger K; Majdak P
    Hear Res; 2015 Apr; 322():138-50. PubMed ID: 25456088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Rate dependent neural responses of interaural-time-difference cues in fine-structure and envelope.
    Hu H; Ewert SD; Kollmeier B; Vickers D
    PeerJ; 2024; 12():e17104. PubMed ID: 38680894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Binaural hearing in children using Gaussian enveloped and transposed tones.
    Ehlers E; Kan A; Winn MB; Stoelb C; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Apr; 139(4):1724. PubMed ID: 27106319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on binaural fusion and lateralization in bilateral cochlear-implant users.
    Kan A; Stoelb C; Litovsky RY; Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):2923-36. PubMed ID: 24116428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Extent of lateralization at large interaural time differences in simulated electric hearing and bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Baumgärtel RM; Hu H; Kollmeier B; Dietz M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2338. PubMed ID: 28464641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Interaural envelope correlation change discrimination in bilateral cochlear implantees: effects of mismatch, centering, and onset of deafness.
    Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1282-97. PubMed ID: 25786942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Binaural sensitivity in children who use bilateral cochlear implants.
    Ehlers E; Goupell MJ; Zheng Y; Godar SP; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4264. PubMed ID: 28618809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Effect of multi-electrode configuration on sensitivity to interaural timing differences in bilateral cochlear-implant users.
    Kan A; Jones HG; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):3826-33. PubMed ID: 26723337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Simulating the effect of interaural mismatch in the insertion depth of bilateral cochlear implants on speech perception.
    van Besouw RM; Forrester L; Crowe ND; Rowan D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Aug; 134(2):1348-57. PubMed ID: 23927131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.