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.
133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33261385)
41. The influence of evoking stimulus level on the neural suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. Ryan S; Kemp DT Hear Res; 1996 May; 94(1-2):140-7. PubMed ID: 8789819 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Medial olivocochlear suppression in musicians versus non-musicians. Bulut E; Öztürk G; Taş M; Türkmen MT; Gülmez ZD; Öztürk L Physiol Int; 2019 Jun; 106(2):151-157. PubMed ID: 31262207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. The Reliability of Contralateral Suppression of Otoacoustic Emissions Is Greater in Women than in Men. Jedrzejczak WW; Pilka E; Pastucha M; Kochanek K; Skarzynski H Audiol Res; 2022 Jan; 12(1):79-86. PubMed ID: 35200258 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Contralateral suppression of linear and nonlinear transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in neonates at risk for hearing loss. Durante AS; Carvallo RM J Commun Disord; 2008; 41(1):70-83. PubMed ID: 17585930 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Controlled (re)evaluation of the relationship between speech perception in noise and contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions. Shaikh MA; Connell K; Zhang D Hear Res; 2021 Sep; 409():108332. PubMed ID: 34419743 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. [A study on the effects of contralateral acoustic suppression to transient evoked otoacoustic emissions after noise exposure]. Xue X; Zhong N Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi; 2002 Apr; 16(4):164-5, 168. PubMed ID: 12608281 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Time-course of the human medial olivocochlear reflex. Backus BC; Guinan JJ J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 May; 119(5 Pt 1):2889-904. PubMed ID: 16708947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Effect of prolonged contralateral acoustic stimulation on transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. van Zyl A; Swanepoel D; Hall JW Hear Res; 2009 Aug; 254(1-2):77-81. PubMed ID: 19401226 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. The Medial Olivocochlear Reflex Is Unlikely to Play a Role in Listening Difficulties in Children. Boothalingam S; Allan C; Allen P; Purcell DW Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519870942. PubMed ID: 31558110 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. [Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and efferent control of cochlea]. Xu J; Liu C; Guo L; Lian N; Liu B Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi; 2001 Dec; 36(6):436-40. PubMed ID: 12761959 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Standardization of the TEOAE Contralateral Suppression Test in Terms of Stimulus Intensity and Contralateral Noise Duration in Individuals with Normal Hearing. Celikgun B; Derinsu U J Am Acad Audiol; 2022 Jan; 33(1):29-35. PubMed ID: 35512841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. [A study on the contralateral suppressive effects of distortion product otoacoustic emissions]. Wang H; Zhong N Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi; 1997 Nov; 11(11):489-92. PubMed ID: 10323015 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Relationships between the expectations based on the regularity of preceding sound sequences and the medial olivocochlear reflex. Ishizaka Y; Otsuka S; Nakagawa S PLoS One; 2024; 19(7):e0304027. PubMed ID: 39018315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Frequency specificity and left-ear advantage of medial olivocochlear efferent modulation: a study based on stimulus frequency otoacoustic emission. Xing D; Gong Q Neuroreport; 2017 Sep; 28(13):775-778. PubMed ID: 28538522 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]