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 *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26373935)

  • 1. Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Delays and Generating Mechanisms in Guinea Pigs, Chinchillas, and Simulations.
    Berezina-Greene MA; Guinan JJ
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Dec; 16(6):679-94. PubMed ID: 26373935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Spatial Origins of Cochlear Amplification Assessed by Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions.
    Goodman SS; Lee C; Guinan JJ; Lichtenhan JT
    Biophys J; 2020 Mar; 118(5):1183-1195. PubMed ID: 31968228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Electrically Evoked Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Effects on Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions in Guinea Pigs.
    Berezina-Greene MA; Guinan JJ
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2017 Feb; 18(1):153-163. PubMed ID: 27798720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Testing coherent reflection in chinchilla: Auditory-nerve responses predict stimulus-frequency emissions.
    Shera CA; Tubis A; Talmadge CL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Jul; 124(1):381-95. PubMed ID: 18646984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Nonlinear reflection as a cause of the short-latency component in stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions simulated by the methods of compression and suppression.
    Vencovský V; Vetešník A; Gummer AW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Jun; 147(6):3992. PubMed ID: 32611132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Delays of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions and cochlear vibrations contradict the theory of coherent reflection filtering.
    Siegel JH; Cerka AJ; Recio-Spinoso A; Temchin AN; van Dijk P; Ruggero MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Oct; 118(4):2434-43. PubMed ID: 16266165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Otoacoustic estimation of cochlear tuning: validation in the chinchilla.
    Shera CA; Guinan JJ; Oxenham AJ
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2010 Sep; 11(3):343-65. PubMed ID: 20440634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effects of low-frequency biasing on otoacoustic and neural measures suggest that stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions originate near the peak region of the traveling wave.
    Lichtenhan JT
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2012 Feb; 13(1):17-28. PubMed ID: 22002610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The origin of SFOAE microstructure in the guinea pig.
    Goodman SS; Withnell RH; Shera CA
    Hear Res; 2003 Sep; 183(1-2):7-17. PubMed ID: 13679133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Efferent-mediated reduction in cochlear gain does not alter tuning estimates from stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission group delays.
    Bhagat SP; Kilgore C
    Neurosci Lett; 2014 Jan; 559():132-5. PubMed ID: 24333175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Basilar-membrane interference patterns from multiple internal reflection of cochlear traveling waves.
    Shera CA; Cooper NP
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2224-39. PubMed ID: 23556591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Suppression of stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions.
    Brass D; Kemp DT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Feb; 93(2):920-39. PubMed ID: 8445127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Stimulus-frequency-emission group delay: a test of coherent reflection filtering and a window on cochlear tuning.
    Shera CA; Guinan JJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 May; 113(5):2762-72. PubMed ID: 12765394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of OAEs arising from different generation mechanisms in guinea pig.
    Withnell RH; Dhar S; Thomsen A
    Hear Res; 2005 Sep; 207(1-2):76-86. PubMed ID: 15935577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Estimating cochlear frequency selectivity with stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions in chinchillas.
    Charaziak KK; Siegel JH
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2014 Dec; 15(6):883-96. PubMed ID: 25230801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Swept-Tone Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions in Human Newborns.
    Abdala C; Luo P; Guardia Y
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519889226. PubMed ID: 31789131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Profiles of Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions from 0.5 to 20 kHz in Humans.
    Dewey JB; Dhar S
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2017 Feb; 18(1):89-110. PubMed ID: 27681700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Relationship Between Behavioral and Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions Delay-Based Tuning Estimates.
    Wilson US; Browning-Kamins J; Boothalingam S; Moleti A; Sisto R; Dhar S
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2020 Jun; 63(6):1958-1968. PubMed ID: 32464079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Spectral Ripples in Round-Window Cochlear Microphonics: Evidence for Multiple Generation Mechanisms.
    Charaziak KK; Siegel JH; Shera CA
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Aug; 19(4):401-419. PubMed ID: 30014309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Simultaneous recording of stimulus-frequency and distortion-product otoacoustic emission input-output functions in human ears.
    Schairer KS; Keefe DH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Feb; 117(2):818-32. PubMed ID: 15759702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.