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: 8851115)

  • 1. [Amplitude modulation following response (AMFR)--a method for objective frequency specific audiologic diagnosis].
    Pethe J; Begall K; Mühler R; Lottmann JK
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1996 Jan; 75(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 8851115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Effect of stimulus rise time and high-pass masking on early auditory evoked potentials].
    Bunke D; von Specht H; Mühler R; Pethe J; Kevanishvili Z
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1998 Apr; 77(4):185-90. PubMed ID: 9592750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Auditory steady-state responses to bone conduction stimuli in children with hearing loss.
    Swanepoel de W; Ebrahim S; Friedland P; Swanepoel A; Pottas L
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2008 Dec; 72(12):1861-71. PubMed ID: 18963045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Effect of inner ear hearing loss on delayed otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and distortion products (DPOAE)].
    Hoth S
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1996 Dec; 75(12):709-18. PubMed ID: 9081275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Optimizing the stimuli to evoke the amplitude modulation following response (AMFR) in neonates.
    Riquelme R; Kuwada S; Filipovic B; Hartung K; Leonard G
    Ear Hear; 2006 Apr; 27(2):104-19. PubMed ID: 16518139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Frequency specificity of 80-Hz amplitude-modulation following response.
    Aoyagi M; Yamazaki Y; Yokota M; Fuse T; Suzuki Y; Itoh S; Watanabe T
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1996; 522():6-10. PubMed ID: 8740802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Amplitude modulation following responses in audiological diagnostics].
    Pethe J; Mühler R; von Specht H
    HNO; 2002 Dec; 50(12):1045-52. PubMed ID: 12474125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Reaction times at auditory threshold: a comparison of normal hearing probands and patients with hearing damage].
    Hustert B; Kumpf W; Stoll W
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1996 Mar; 75(3):135-40. PubMed ID: 8652028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Neuro-otologic criteria in the diagnosis of tumor-induced hearing disorders. Studies of 300 patients with acoustic neuroma].
    Mausolf A; Laubert A
    HNO; 1990 Feb; 38(2):50-5. PubMed ID: 2318668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Efficient stimuli for recording of the amplitude modulation following response.
    Stürzebecher E; Cebulla M; Pschirrer U
    Audiology; 2001; 40(2):63-8. PubMed ID: 11409764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of 40 Hz auditory steady-state response (ASSR) and cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) thresholds in awake adult subjects.
    Tomlin D; Rance G; Graydon K; Tsialios I
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Oct; 45(10):580-8. PubMed ID: 17062499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Distortion product of otoacoustic emissions in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss].
    Schlögel H; Stephan K; Böheim K; Welzl-Müller K
    HNO; 1995 Jan; 43(1):19-24. PubMed ID: 7890546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Audiologic diagnosis of tumor-induced neural hearing disorders based on discrete finding constellations].
    Mausolf A; Laubert A; Marangos N
    HNO; 1990 Sep; 38(9):317-21. PubMed ID: 2262348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of cochlear hearing disorders: normative distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements.
    Mills DM; Feeney MP; Gates GA
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):778-92. PubMed ID: 17982366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The amplitude modulation-following response as an audiometric tool.
    Griffiths SK; Chambers RD
    Ear Hear; 1991 Aug; 12(4):235-41. PubMed ID: 1783225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Frequency-dependent cochlear microphonics in inner ear hearing loss with various pitch thresholds].
    Marangos N; Hesse G; Mausolf A
    HNO; 1989 Jan; 37(1):27-9. PubMed ID: 2917880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of auditory steady-state responses and auditory brainstem responses in audiometric assessment of adults with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Lin YH; Ho HC; Wu HP
    Auris Nasus Larynx; 2009 Apr; 36(2):140-5. PubMed ID: 18620826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An objective method of analyzing cochlear versus noncochlear patterns of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in patients with acoustic neuromas.
    Telischi F
    Laryngoscope; 2000 Apr; 110(4):553-62. PubMed ID: 10763999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Possibility for quantitative and frequency-specific assessment of auditory threshold with otoacoustic emissions].
    Dreher A; Suckfüll M; Schneeweiss S; Schorn K
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1997 Jan; 76(1):2-7. PubMed ID: 9156504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The influence of the detection paradigm in recording auditory steady-state responses.
    Luts H; Van Dun B; Alaerts J; Wouters J
    Ear Hear; 2008 Aug; 29(4):638-50. PubMed ID: 18469712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.