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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9670536)

  • 1. Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant subjects.
    Richardson LM; Busby PA; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Jul; 104(1):442-52. PubMed ID: 9670536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant listeners under forward masking conditions.
    Chatterjee M; Kulkarni AM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Feb; 143(2):1117. PubMed ID: 29495705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Across- and within-channel envelope interactions in cochlear implant listeners.
    Chatterjee M; Oba SI
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2004 Dec; 5(4):360-75. PubMed ID: 15675001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers.
    Dingemanse JG; Frijns JH; Briaire JJ
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):645-57. PubMed ID: 17086076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Modulation masking in cochlear implant listeners: envelope versus tonotopic components.
    Chatterjee M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2042-53. PubMed ID: 12703715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pure-Tone Masking Patterns for Monopolar and Phantom Electrical Stimulation in Cochlear Implants.
    Saoji AA; Koka K; Litvak LM; Finley CC
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):124-130. PubMed ID: 28700446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Monopolar Detection Thresholds Predict Spatial Selectivity of Neural Excitation in Cochlear Implants: Implications for Speech Recognition.
    Zhou N
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(10):e0165476. PubMed ID: 27798658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Psychophysical recovery from single-pulse forward masking in electric hearing.
    Nelson DA; Donaldson GS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Jun; 109(6):2921-33. PubMed ID: 11425134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing.
    Krüger B; Büchner A; Nogueira W
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():185-196. PubMed ID: 28688755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of masker gating for signal detection in unmodulated and modulated bandlimited noise.
    Hall JW; Grose JH; Hatch DR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1996 Oct; 100(4 Pt 1):2365-72. PubMed ID: 8865643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Factors affecting thresholds for sinusoidal signals in narrow-band maskers with fluctuating envelopes.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1987 Jul; 82(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 3624643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of stimulus level and rate on psychophysical thresholds for interleaved pulse trains in cochlear implants.
    Hughes ML; Goehring JL; Baudhuin JL; Schmid KK
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Oct; 140(4):2297. PubMed ID: 27794318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of modulator phase for comodulation masking release and modulation detection interference.
    Richards VM; Buss E; Tian L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Jul; 102(1):468-76. PubMed ID: 9228809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The perception of temporal modulations by cochlear implant patients.
    Busby PA; Tong YC; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Jul; 94(1):124-31. PubMed ID: 8354754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Auditory steady-state responses in cochlear implant users: Effect of modulation frequency and stimulation artifacts.
    Gransier R; Deprez H; Hofmann M; Moonen M; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2016 May; 335():149-160. PubMed ID: 26994660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Modulation discrimination interference and comodulation masking release as a function of the number and spectral placement of narrow-band noise modulators.
    Moore BC; Jorasz U
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1996 Oct; 100(4 Pt 1):2373-81. PubMed ID: 8865644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Modulation frequency discrimination with single and multiple channels in cochlear implant users.
    Galvin JJ; Oba S; Başkent D; Fu QJ
    Hear Res; 2015 Jun; 324():7-18. PubMed ID: 25746914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Amplitude Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition in Late-Implanted Prelingually and Postlingually Deafened Cochlear Implant Users.
    De Ruiter AM; Debruyne JA; Chenault MN; Francart T; Brokx JP
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(5):557-66. PubMed ID: 25851075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Some effects of background noise on modulation detection interference.
    Bacon SP
    Hear Res; 1999 Mar; 129(1-2):20-6. PubMed ID: 10190748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.