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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8647718)

  • 1. Suppression of stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions by contralateral noise.
    Souter M
    Hear Res; 1995 Nov; 91(1-2):167-77. PubMed ID: 8647718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Efferent-mediated reduction in cochlear gain does not alter tuning estimates from stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission group delays.
    Bhagat SP; Kilgore C
    Neurosci Lett; 2014 Jan; 559():132-5. PubMed ID: 24333175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Suppression of stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions.
    Brass D; Kemp DT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Feb; 93(2):920-39. PubMed ID: 8445127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Electrically Evoked Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Effects on Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions in Guinea Pigs.
    Berezina-Greene MA; Guinan JJ
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2017 Feb; 18(1):153-163. PubMed ID: 27798720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The influence of evoking stimulus level on the neural suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions.
    Ryan S; Kemp DT
    Hear Res; 1996 May; 94(1-2):140-7. PubMed ID: 8789819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Contralaterally evoked transient otoacoustic emissions.
    Pratt H; Shi Y; Polyakov A
    Hear Res; 1998 Jan; 115(1-2):39-44. PubMed ID: 9472734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of contralateral acoustic stimulation on active cochlear micromechanical properties in human subjects: dependence on stimulus variables.
    Veuillet E; Collet L; Duclaux R
    J Neurophysiol; 1991 Mar; 65(3):724-35. PubMed ID: 2051201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions from guinea pig and human subjects.
    Souter M
    Hear Res; 1995 Oct; 90(1-2):1-11. PubMed ID: 8974986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Frequency tuning of medial-olivocochlear-efferent acoustic reflexes in humans as functions of probe frequency.
    Lilaonitkul W; Guinan JJ
    J Neurophysiol; 2012 Mar; 107(6):1598-611. PubMed ID: 22190630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Nonlinear reflection as a cause of the short-latency component in stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions simulated by the methods of compression and suppression.
    Vencovský V; Vetešník A; Gummer AW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Jun; 147(6):3992. PubMed ID: 32611132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Acoustic stimulation of human medial olivocochlear efferents reduces stimulus-frequency and click-evoked otoacoustic emission delays: Implications for cochlear filter bandwidths.
    Francis NA; Guinan JJ
    Hear Res; 2010 Aug; 267(1-2):36-45. PubMed ID: 20430088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Medial olivocochlear efferent reflex in humans: otoacoustic emission (OAE) measurement issues and the advantages of stimulus frequency OAEs.
    Guinan JJ; Backus BC; Lilaonitkul W; Aharonson V
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2003 Dec; 4(4):521-40. PubMed ID: 12799992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Contralateral auditory stimulation alters acoustic distortion products in humans.
    Moulin A; Collet L; Duclaux R
    Hear Res; 1993 Feb; 65(1-2):193-210. PubMed ID: 8458751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Use of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission latency and level to investigate cochlear mechanics in human ears.
    Schairer KS; Ellison JC; Fitzpatrick D; Keefe DH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Aug; 120(2):901-14. PubMed ID: 16938978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Frequency specificity and left-ear advantage of medial olivocochlear efferent modulation: a study based on stimulus frequency otoacoustic emission.
    Xing D; Gong Q
    Neuroreport; 2017 Sep; 28(13):775-778. PubMed ID: 28538522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions Provide No Evidence for the Role of Efferents in the Enhancement Effect.
    Beim JA; Elliott M; Oxenham AJ; Wojtczak M
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Oct; 16(5):613-29. PubMed ID: 26153415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Use of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions to investigate efferent and cochlear contributions to temporal overshoot.
    Keefe DH; Schairer KS; Ellison JC; Fitzpatrick DF; Jesteadt W
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Mar; 125(3):1595-604. PubMed ID: 19275317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Simultaneous recording of stimulus-frequency and distortion-product otoacoustic emission input-output functions in human ears.
    Schairer KS; Keefe DH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Feb; 117(2):818-32. PubMed ID: 15759702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparing stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions measured by compression, suppression, and spectral smoothing.
    Kalluri R; Shera CA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Dec; 122(6):3562-75. PubMed ID: 18247764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Frequency selectivity of the human cochlea: Suppression tuning of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions.
    Manley GA; van Dijk P
    Hear Res; 2016 Jun; 336():53-62. PubMed ID: 27139323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.