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.
5. 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]
6. Frequency discrimination in forward and backward masking. Turner CW; Zeng FG; Relkin EM; Horwitz AR J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Dec; 92(6):3102-8. PubMed ID: 1474225 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Recovery from prior stimulation. II: Effects upon intensity discrimination. Zeng FG; Turner CW; Relkin EM Hear Res; 1991 Oct; 55(2):223-30. PubMed ID: 1757290 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Auditory brainstem response latency in forward masking, a marker of sensory deficits in listeners with normal hearing thresholds. Mehraei G; Gallardo AP; Shinn-Cunningham BG; Dau T Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 346():34-44. PubMed ID: 28159652 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The mid-difference hump in forward-masked intensity discrimination. Oberfeld D J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Mar; 123(3):1571-81. PubMed ID: 18345845 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus. Shannon RV; Otto SR Hear Res; 1990 Aug; 47(1-2):159-68. PubMed ID: 2228792 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The mid-level hump at 2 kHz. Nizami L; Reimer JF; Jesteadt W J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Aug; 112(2):642-53. PubMed ID: 12186044 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effects of forward masking on intensity discrimination, frequency discrimination, and the detection of tones in noise. Carlyon RP; Beveridge HA J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 May; 93(5):2886-95. PubMed ID: 8315152 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Forward- and backward-masked intensity discrimination measured using forced-choice and adjustment procedures. Turner CW; Horwitz AR; Souza PE J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Oct; 96(4):2121-6. PubMed ID: 7963025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Antimasking effects of the olivocochlear reflex. I. Enhancement of compound action potentials to masked tones. Kawase T; Liberman MC J Neurophysiol; 1993 Dec; 70(6):2519-32. PubMed ID: 8120596 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Binaural release from masking in forward-masked intensity discrimination: evidence for effects of selective attention. Oberfeld D; Stahn P; Kuta M Hear Res; 2012 Dec; 294(1-2):1-9. PubMed ID: 23010335 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The role of suppression in the upward spread of masking. Yasin I; Plack CJ J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2005 Dec; 6(4):368-77. PubMed ID: 16261268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evidence that adaptation of suppression cannot account for auditory enhancement or enhanced forward masking. Wright BA; McFadden D Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 1992 Jun; 336(1278):325-8; discussion 328-9. PubMed ID: 1354371 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Neural mechanisms of tone-on-tone masking: patterns of discharge rate and discharge synchrony related to rates of spontaneous discharge in the chinchilla auditory nerve. Sinex DG; Havey DC J Neurophysiol; 1986 Dec; 56(6):1763-80. PubMed ID: 3806187 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]