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 *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29495705)

  • 1. Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant listeners under forward masking conditions.
    Chatterjee M; Kulkarni AM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Feb; 143(2):1117. PubMed ID: 29495705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Electric-acoustic forward masking in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Krüger B; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2018 Jul; 364():25-37. PubMed ID: 29673567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
    Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
    Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological electric-acoustic interaction effects in cochlear implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing.
    Imsiecke M; Büchner A; Lenarz T; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2020 Feb; 386():107873. PubMed ID: 31884220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing.
    Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():185-196. PubMed ID: 28688755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Across- and within-channel envelope interactions in cochlear implant listeners.
    Chatterjee M; Oba SI
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Dec; 5(4):360-75. PubMed ID: 15675001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Inherent envelope fluctuations in forward maskers: Effects of masker-probe delay for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Svec A; Dubno JR; Nelson PB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Mar; 139(3):1195-203. PubMed ID: 27036255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Changing stimulation patterns can change the broadness of contralateral masking functions for bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Lee DH; Aronoff JM
    Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():55-61. PubMed ID: 29548706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Place specificity measured in forward and interleaved masking in cochlear implants.
    Azadpour M; AlJasser A; McKay CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):EL314-20. PubMed ID: 24116536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Adaptation to noise in amplitude modulation detection without the medial olivocochlear reflex.
    Marrufo-Pérez MI; Eustaquio-Martín A; Fumero MJ; Gorospe JM; Polo R; Gutiérrez Revilla A; Lopez-Poveda EA
    Hear Res; 2019 Jun; 377():133-141. PubMed ID: 30933705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant subjects.
    Richardson LM; Busby PA; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Jul; 104(1):442-52. PubMed ID: 9670536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comodulation masking release induced by controlled electrical stimulation of auditory nerve fibers.
    Zirn S; Hempel JM; Schuster M; Hemmert W
    Hear Res; 2013 Feb; 296():60-6. PubMed ID: 23220120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.
    Rana B; Buchholz JM; Morgan C; Sharma M; Weller T; Konganda SA; Shirai K; Kawano A
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517722106. PubMed ID: 28752811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Recovery from forward masking in cochlear implant listeners depends on stimulation mode, level, and electrode location.
    Chatterjee M; Kulkarni AM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):3190. PubMed ID: 28682084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluating multipulse integration as a neural-health correlate in human cochlear-implant users: Relationship to forward-masking recovery.
    Zhou N; Pfingst BE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Mar; 139(3):EL70-5. PubMed ID: 27036290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Binaural unmasking with multiple adjacent masking electrodes in bilateral cochlear implant users.
    Lu T; Litovsky R; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3934-45. PubMed ID: 21682415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.