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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8331318)

  • 41. Music perception, pitch, and the auditory system.
    McDermott JH; Oxenham AJ
    Curr Opin Neurobiol; 2008 Aug; 18(4):452-63. PubMed ID: 18824100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. On Older Listeners' Ability to Perceive Dynamic Pitch.
    Shen J; Wright R; Souza PE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2016 Jun; 59(3):572-82. PubMed ID: 27177161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Temporal dynamics of pitch strength in regular-interval noises: effect of listening region and an auditory model.
    Wiegrebe L; Hirsch HS; Patterson RD; Fastl H
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Jun; 107(6):3343-50. PubMed ID: 10875379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Low- and high-frequency cortical brain oscillations reflect dissociable mechanisms of concurrent speech segregation in noise.
    Yellamsetty A; Bidelman GM
    Hear Res; 2018 Apr; 361():92-102. PubMed ID: 29398142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Induced loudness reduction as a function of exposure time and signal frequency.
    Wagner E; Scharf B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Feb; 119(2):1012-20. PubMed ID: 16521763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Detection of silent intervals between noises activating different perceptual channels: some properties of "central" auditory gap detection.
    Phillips DP; Taylor TL; Hall SE; Carr MM; Mossop JE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Jun; 101(6):3694-705. PubMed ID: 9193057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Annoyance of bandpass-filtered noises in relation to the factor extracted from autocorrelation function.
    Soeta Y; Maruo T; Ando Y
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Dec; 116(6):3275-8. PubMed ID: 15658678
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Listeners' expectations about echoes can raise or lower echo threshold.
    Clifton RK; Freyman RL; Litovsky RY; McCall D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Mar; 95(3):1525-33. PubMed ID: 8176056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Spectral and binaural loudness summation for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Oetting D; Hohmann V; Appell JE; Kollmeier B; Ewert SD
    Hear Res; 2016 May; 335():179-192. PubMed ID: 27006003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. The effect of stimulus bandwidth on binaural loudness summation.
    Shao Z; Mo F; Mao D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Sep; 138(3):1508-14. PubMed ID: 26428788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Pure tone pitch perception and low-frequency hearing loss.
    Turner C; Burns EM; Nelson DA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1983 Mar; 73(3):966-75. PubMed ID: 6841823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Growth rate of loudness, annoyance, and noisiness as a function of tone location within the noise spectrum.
    Hellman RP
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1984 Jan; 75(1):209-18. PubMed ID: 6699282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Spectral-shape discrimination. I. Results from normal-hearing listeners for stationary broadband noises.
    Farrar CL; Reed CM; Ito Y; Durlach NI; Delhorne LA; Zurek PM; Braida LD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1987 Apr; 81(4):1085-92. PubMed ID: 3571725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. On the ability to discriminate Gaussian-noise tokens or random tone-burst complexes.
    Goossens T; van de Par S; Kohlrausch A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Oct; 124(4):2251-62. PubMed ID: 19062863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. [Annoyance and loudness measurements in auditory fatigue and recovery under different sound exposures].
    Donner R; Doppler U; Haider M; Hloch T; Koller M
    Soz Praventivmed; 1980 Jun; 25(3):110-5. PubMed ID: 7415564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Seeing with sound? exploring different characteristics of a visual-to-auditory sensory substitution device.
    Brown D; Macpherson T; Ward J
    Perception; 2011; 40(9):1120-35. PubMed ID: 22208131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Perceptual consequences of disrupted auditory nerve activity.
    Zeng FG; Kong YY; Michalewski HJ; Starr A
    J Neurophysiol; 2005 Jun; 93(6):3050-63. PubMed ID: 15615831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Loudness of sounds with a subcritical bandwidth: a challenge to current loudness models?
    Hots J; Rennies J; Verhey JL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):EL334-9. PubMed ID: 24116539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Categorical perception of intonation contrasts: effects of listeners' language background.
    Liu C; Rodriguez A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jun; 131(6):EL427-33. PubMed ID: 22713017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.