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 *

74 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28702730)

  • 21. Effects of masker component phase on the forward masking produced by complex tones in normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects.
    Moore BC; Stainsby TH; Tarasewicz E
    Hear Res; 2004 Jun; 192(1-2):90-100. PubMed ID: 15157967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Antimasking effects of the olivocochlear reflex. II. Enhancement of auditory-nerve response to masked tones.
    Kawase T; Delgutte B; Liberman MC
    J Neurophysiol; 1993 Dec; 70(6):2533-49. PubMed ID: 8120597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Stapes displacement and intracochlear pressure in response to very high level, low frequency sounds.
    Greene NT; Jenkins HA; Tollin DJ; Easter JR
    Hear Res; 2017 May; 348():16-30. PubMed ID: 28189837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Evoked otoacoustic emission: behaviour under the forward masking paradigm.
    Kevanishvili Z; Gobsch H; Gvelesiani T; Gamgebeli Z
    ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 1992; 54(5):229-34. PubMed ID: 1488243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Changes in cochlear function related to acoustic stimulation of cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential stimulation.
    Strömberg AK; Olofsson Å; Westin M; Duan M; Stenfelt S
    Hear Res; 2016 Oct; 340():43-49. PubMed ID: 26724755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Frequency tuning curves derived from auditory steady state evoked potentials: a proof-of-concept study.
    Markessis E; Poncelet L; Colin C; Coppens A; Hoonhorst I; Kadhim H; Deltenre P
    Ear Hear; 2009 Feb; 30(1):43-53. PubMed ID: 19125026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Noise-induced changes in cochlear compression in the rat as indexed by forward masking of the auditory brainstem response.
    Bielefeld EC; Hoglund EM; Feth LL
    Hear Res; 2012 Dec; 294(1-2):64-72. PubMed ID: 23123219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Forward-masking recovery and the assumptions of the temporal masking curve method of inferring cochlear compression.
    Pérez-González P; Johannesen PT; Lopez-Poveda EA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 25534365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Frequency-specific enhancement of the cochlear compound action potential: influence of the forward masker.
    Henry KR
    Hear Res; 1991 Nov; 56(1-2):197-202. PubMed ID: 1769914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Acoustic stapedius reflex function in man revisited.
    Aiken SJ; Andrus JN; Bance M; Phillips DP
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):e38-51. PubMed ID: 23403808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Factors affecting psychophysical tuning curves for normally hearing subjects.
    Kluk K; Moore BC
    Hear Res; 2004 Aug; 194(1-2):118-34. PubMed ID: 15276683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant.
    Fraysse B; Macías AR; Sterkers O; Burdo S; Ramsden R; Deguine O; Klenzner T; Lenarz T; Rodriguez MM; Von Wallenberg E; James C
    Otol Neurotol; 2006 Aug; 27(5):624-33. PubMed ID: 16868510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Cochlear compression: recent insights from behavioural experiments.
    Plack CJ
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2013; 787():31-8. PubMed ID: 23716206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Otoacoustic emission estimates of human basilar membrane impulse response duration and cochlear filter tuning.
    Raufer S; Verhulst S
    Hear Res; 2016 Dec; 342():150-160. PubMed ID: 27989947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Suppression and comodulation masking release in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Ernst SM; Rennies J; Kollmeier B; Verhey JL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jul; 128(1):300-9. PubMed ID: 20649225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Compression estimates using behavioral and otoacoustic emission measures.
    Williams EJ; Bacon SP
    Hear Res; 2005 Mar; 201(1-2):44-54. PubMed ID: 15721560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effective masking levels for bone conduction auditory steady state responses in infants and adults with normal hearing.
    Hansen EE; Small SA
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):257-66. PubMed ID: 21926629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The development of a fast method for recording Schroeder-phase masking functions.
    Rahmat S; O'Beirne GA
    Hear Res; 2015 Dec; 330(Pt A):125-33. PubMed ID: 26209881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.