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.
120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8064025)
1. Further studies of a maximum-likelihood yes-no procedure. Gu X; Green DM J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Jul; 96(1):93-101. PubMed ID: 8064025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of pure-tone audibility thresholds obtained with audiological and two-interval forced-choice procedures. Marshall L; Jesteadt W J Speech Hear Res; 1986 Mar; 29(1):82-91. PubMed ID: 3702383 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Maximum-likelihood procedures and the inattentive observer. Green DM J Acoust Soc Am; 1995 Jun; 97(6):3749-60. PubMed ID: 7790653 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A maximum-likelihood method for estimating thresholds in a yes-no task. Green DM J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Apr; 93(4 Pt 1):2096-105. PubMed ID: 8473622 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of a maximum likelihood procedure for measuring pure-tone thresholds under computer control. Formby C; Sherlock LP; Green DM J Am Acad Audiol; 1996 Apr; 7(2):125-9. PubMed ID: 8652865 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The single interval adjustment matrix (SIAM) yes-no task: an empirical assessment using auditory and gustatory stimuli. Shepherd D; Hautus MJ; Stocks MA; Quek SY Atten Percept Psychophys; 2011 Aug; 73(6):1934-47. PubMed ID: 21533962 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparing adaptive procedures for estimating the psychometric function for an auditory gap detection task. Shen Y Atten Percept Psychophys; 2013 May; 75(4):771-80. PubMed ID: 23417238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparing and modeling absolute auditory thresholds in an alternative-forced-choice and a yes-no procedure. Heil P Hear Res; 2021 Apr; 403():108164. PubMed ID: 33453643 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Estimation of psychometric functions from adaptive tracking procedures. Leek MR; Hanna TE; Marshall L Percept Psychophys; 1992 Mar; 51(3):247-56. PubMed ID: 1561050 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A single-interval adjustment-matrix (SIAM) procedure for unbiased adaptive testing. Kaernbach C J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Dec; 88(6):2645-55. PubMed ID: 2283438 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Suprathreshold auditory processing deficits in noise: Effects of hearing loss and age. Kortlang S; Mauermann M; Ewert SD Hear Res; 2016 Jan; 331():27-40. PubMed ID: 26471199 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response. Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A simple single-interval adaptive procedure for estimating thresholds in normal and impaired listeners. Lecluyse W; Meddis R J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):2570-9. PubMed ID: 19894836 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. High-frequency pure-tone audiometry in children: a test-retest reliability study relative to ototoxic criteria. Beahan N; Kei J; Driscoll C; Charles B; Khan A Ear Hear; 2012; 33(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 21760512 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]