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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8176065)

  • 1. The pitch of electrically presented sinusoids.
    Dorman MF; Smith M; Smith L; Parkin JL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Mar; 95(3):1677-9. PubMed ID: 8176065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Pulse-rate discrimination deficit in cochlear implant users: is the upper limit of pitch peripheral or central?
    Zhou N; Mathews J; Dong L
    Hear Res; 2019 Jan; 371():1-10. PubMed ID: 30423498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Dead regions and pitch perception.
    Huss M; Moore BC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Jun; 117(6):3841-52. PubMed ID: 16018486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Relationship Between Peripheral and Psychophysical Measures of Amplitude Modulation Detection in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Tejani VD; Abbas PJ; Brown CJ
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):e268-e284. PubMed ID: 28207576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessing the pitch structure associated with multiple rates and places for cochlear implant users.
    Stohl JS; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1043-53. PubMed ID: 18247906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.
    Dorman MF; Spahr T; Gifford R; Loiselle L; McKarns S; Holden T; Skinner M; Finley C
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2007 Jun; 8(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 17351713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Temporal modulation transfer functions obtained using sinusoidal carriers with normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1067-73. PubMed ID: 11519575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Articulation index predictions for hearing-impaired listeners with and without cochlear dead regions.
    Rankovic CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Jun; 111(6):2545-8; author reply 2549-50. PubMed ID: 12083183
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Stimulus features affecting psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea. I: Phase duration and stimulus duration.
    Pfingst BE; DeHaan DR; Holloway LA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1991 Oct; 90(4 Pt 1):1857-66. PubMed ID: 1960279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Application of a pitch perception model to investigate the effect of stimulation field spread on the pitch ranking abilities of cochlear implant recipients.
    Erfanian Saeedi N; Blamey PJ; Burkitt AN; Grayden DB
    Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 316():129-37. PubMed ID: 25193552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Pitch scaling and speech understanding by patients who use the Ineraid cochlear implant.
    Dorman MF; Smith L; McCandless G; Dunnavant G; Parkin J; Dankowski K
    Ear Hear; 1990 Aug; 11(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 2210107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers.
    Goldsworthy RL
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Dec; 16(6):797-809. PubMed ID: 26373936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cochlear nonlinearity between 500 and 8000 Hz in listeners with normal hearing.
    Lopez-Poveda EA; Plack CJ; Meddis R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Feb; 113(2):951-60. PubMed ID: 12597188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sensitivity to isolated and concurrent intensity and fundamental frequency increments by cochlear implant users under natural listening conditions.
    Rogers CF; Healy EW; Montgomery AA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Apr; 119(4):2276-87. PubMed ID: 16642841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Limitations on rate discrimination.
    Carlyon RP; Deeks JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Sep; 112(3 Pt 1):1009-25. PubMed ID: 12243150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch.
    Schatzer R; Vermeire K; Visser D; Krenmayr A; Kals M; Voormolen M; Van de Heyning P; Zierhofer C
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():26-35. PubMed ID: 24252455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech encoding in the auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implants.
    Sachs MB; Young ED; Miller MI
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1983; 405():94-113. PubMed ID: 6575675
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An alternate approach to constructing distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) suppression tuning curves.
    Johnson TA; Neely ST; Dierking DM; Hoover BM; Gorga MP
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Dec; 116(6):3263-6. PubMed ID: 15658675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Psychometric functions and temporal integration in electric hearing.
    Donaldson GS; Viemeister NF; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Jun; 101(6):3706-21. PubMed ID: 9193058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The representation of the spectra and fundamental frequencies of steady-state single- and double-vowel sounds in the temporal discharge patterns of guinea pig cochlear-nerve fibers.
    Palmer AR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Sep; 88(3):1412-26. PubMed ID: 2229676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.