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 *

82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 500977)

  • 1. Optimum threshold crossings and time-window validation in threshold pure-tone computerized audiometry.
    Harris JD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1979 Nov; 66(5):1545-7. PubMed ID: 500977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Analysis of click-evoked auditory brainstem responses using time domain cross-correlations between interleaved responses.
    Berninger E; Olofsson A; Leijon A
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(3):318-29. PubMed ID: 24557002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of background noise on earphone thresholds.
    Frank T; Williams DL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1993 May; 4(3):201-12. PubMed ID: 8318711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of two procedural modifications of the frequency of false-alarm responses during pure-tone threshold determination.
    Dancer JE; Conn M
    J Aud Res; 1983 Jul; 23(3):215-9. PubMed ID: 6680723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of ascending and bracketing methods in pure tone audiometry. A multi-laboratory study.
    Arlinger SD
    Scand Audiol; 1979; 8(4):247-51. PubMed ID: 531479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of manual methods for measuring hearing levels.
    Tyler RS; Wood EJ
    Audiology; 1980; 19(4):316-29. PubMed ID: 7378026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Pure-Tone Audiometry With Forward Pressure Level Calibration Leads to Clinically-Relevant Improvements in Test-Retest Reliability.
    Lapsley Miller JA; Reed CM; Robinson SR; Perez ZD
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(5):946-957. PubMed ID: 29470259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Detection of pseudohypacusis: a prospective, randomized study of the use of otoacoustic emissions.
    Balatsouras DG; Kaberos A; Korres S; Kandiloros D; Ferekidis E; Economou C
    Ear Hear; 2003 Dec; 24(6):518-827. PubMed ID: 14663351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Correlation of auditory brainstem evoked potentials and pure tone audiometric thresholds].
    Martínez Ibarguen A
    Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp; 1993; 44(3):169-73. PubMed ID: 8357628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Using a combination of click- and tone burst-evoked auditory brain stem response measurements to estimate pure-tone thresholds.
    Gorga MP; Johnson TA; Kaminski JR; Beauchaine KL; Garner CA; Neely ST
    Ear Hear; 2006 Feb; 27(1):60-74. PubMed ID: 16446565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fixed-Level Frequency Threshold Testing for Ototoxicity Monitoring.
    Rieke CC; Clavier OH; Allen LV; Anderson AP; Brooks CA; Fellows AM; Brungart DS; Buckey JC
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(6):e369-e375. PubMed ID: 28362673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The relation between the pure-tone audiogram and the click auditory brainstem response threshold in cochlear hearing loss.
    van der Drift JF; Brocaar MP; van Zanten GA
    Audiology; 1987; 26(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 3593096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Brain stem audiometry and unconventional audiometry in small children--a comparison with pure-tone audiometry performed at a later time].
    Jensen JH; Ostri BJ
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1991 Apr; 153(15):1055-7. PubMed ID: 2024330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Characteristics and significance of 1/2 octave frequency pure-tone audiometry on 82 patients with tinnitus].
    Chen P; Su J; Cai H; Zheng M; Huang D
    Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi; 2004 Oct; 18(10):593-5. PubMed ID: 15620135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Computerized pure tone audiometry.
    Almqvist B; Aursnes J
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1978; (Suppl 8):193-6. PubMed ID: 299103
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparing pure-tone audiometry and auditory steady state response for the measurement of hearing loss.
    Ahn JH; Lee HS; Kim YJ; Yoon TH; Chung JW
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2007 Jun; 136(6):966-71. PubMed ID: 17547989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Distribution characteristics of normal pure-tone thresholds.
    Margolis RH; Wilson RH; Popelka GR; Eikelboom RH; Swanepoel de W; Saly GL
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54(11):796-805. PubMed ID: 25938502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Agreement between auditory threshold calculated from cortical evoked response audiometry and tone audiometry in occupational hearing loss].
    Janisch R; Jerábek J
    Cesk Otolaryngol; 1990 Aug; 39(4):234-41. PubMed ID: 2289246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Relations between pure-tone threshold and discrimination of monosyllables in inner ear high-frequency hearing disorders].
    Battmer RD; Lehnhardt E
    HNO; 1984 Feb; 32(2):69-73. PubMed ID: 6706703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How we do it: tympanoplasty: are different three- and four-frequency averages comparable?
    Dawes PJ; Welch D; Lee P
    Clin Otolaryngol; 2006 Aug; 31(4):321-4. PubMed ID: 16911654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.