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 *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31946560)

  • 1. Studying the Effect of Carrier Type on the Perception of Vocoded Stimuli via Mismatch Negativity.
    Xu D; Zheng D; Chen F
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2019 Jul; 2019():3167-3170. PubMed ID: 31946560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Preattentive cortical-evoked responses to pure tones, harmonic tones, and speech: influence of music training.
    Nikjeh DA; Lister JJ; Frisch SA
    Ear Hear; 2009 Aug; 30(4):432-46. PubMed ID: 19494778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An ERP Study on the Combined-stimulation Advantage in Vocoder Simulations.
    Xu D; Wang L; Chen F
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2018 Jul; 2018():2442-2445. PubMed ID: 30440901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cortical, auditory, event-related potentials in response to periodic and aperiodic stimuli with the same spectral envelope.
    Martin BA; Boothroyd A
    Ear Hear; 1999 Feb; 20(1):33-44. PubMed ID: 10037064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Neural indices of phonemic discrimination and sentence-level speech intelligibility in quiet and noise: A mismatch negativity study.
    Koerner TK; Zhang Y; Nelson PB; Wang B; Zou H
    Hear Res; 2016 Sep; 339():40-9. PubMed ID: 27267705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Human Frequency Following Responses to Vocoded Speech.
    Ananthakrishnan S; Luo X; Krishnan A
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):e256-e267. PubMed ID: 28362674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Automatic auditory processing of english words as indexed by the mismatch negativity, using a multiple deviant paradigm.
    Pettigrew CM; Murdoch BE; Ponton CW; Finnigan S; Alku P; Kei J; Sockalingam R; Chenery HJ
    Ear Hear; 2004 Jun; 25(3):284-301. PubMed ID: 15179119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effects of various articulatory features of speech on cortical event-related potentials and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing.
    Korczak PA; Stapells DR
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):491-504. PubMed ID: 20453651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effect of different noise types on the speech and non-speech elicited mismatch negativity.
    Kozou H; Kujala T; Shtyrov Y; Toppila E; Starck J; Alku P; Näätänen R
    Hear Res; 2005 Jan; 199(1-2):31-9. PubMed ID: 15574298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Neurophysiological indices of speech and nonspeech stimulus processing.
    Tampas JW; Harkrider AW; Hedrick MS
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Oct; 48(5):1147-64. PubMed ID: 16411803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Age-Related Compensation Mechanism Revealed in the Cortical Representation of Degraded Speech.
    Anderson S; Roque L; Gaskins CR; Gordon-Salant S; Goupell MJ
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2020 Aug; 21(4):373-391. PubMed ID: 32643075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Effect of Aging and the High-Frequency Auditory Threshold on Speech-Evoked Mismatch Negativity in a Noisy Background.
    Chen J; Chen S; Zheng Y; Ou Y
    Audiol Neurootol; 2016; 21(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 26650255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Auditory pre-attentive processing of Chinese tones.
    Yang LJ; Cao KL; Wei CG; Liu YZ
    Chin Med J (Engl); 2008 Dec; 121(23):2429-33. PubMed ID: 19102963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The effects of noise vocoding on gap detection thresholds.
    Zhang F; Blankenship C; Xiang J; Houston L; Samy R
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015; 16(6):331-40. PubMed ID: 25941867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Processing of word stress related acoustic information: A multi-feature MMN study.
    Honbolygó F; Kolozsvári O; Csépe V
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2017 Aug; 118():9-17. PubMed ID: 28549538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech.
    Souza P; Rosen S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Aug; 126(2):792-805. PubMed ID: 19640044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of low-pass noise masking on auditory event-related potentials to speech.
    Martin BA; Stapells DR
    Ear Hear; 2005 Apr; 26(2):195-213. PubMed ID: 15809545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of noise suppression and envelope dynamic range compression on the intelligibility of vocoded sentences for a tonal language.
    Chen F; Zheng D; Tsao Y
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Sep; 142(3):1157. PubMed ID: 28964090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The effects of noise vocoding on speech quality perception.
    Anderson MC; Arehart KH; Kates JM
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():75-83. PubMed ID: 24333929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Event-related potential indices of auditory vowel processing in 3-year-old children.
    Ceponiene R; Lepistö T; Alku P; Aro H; Näätänen R
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2003 Apr; 114(4):652-61. PubMed ID: 12686274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.