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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

118 related items for PubMed ID: 2446849

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Click polarity inversion effects upon the human brainstem auditory evoked potential.
    Kevanishvili Z, Aphonchenko V.
    Scand Audiol; 1981; 10(3):141-7. PubMed ID: 7302521
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Further differences between brain-stem auditory potentials evoked by rarefaction and condensation clicks as revealed by vector analysis.
    Coutin P, Balmaseda A, Miranda J.
    Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1987 Apr; 66(4):420-6. PubMed ID: 2435522
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Sex differences in the amplitudes and latencies of the human auditory brain stem potential.
    Michalewski HJ, Thompson LW, Patterson JV, Bowman TE, Litzelman D.
    Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1980 Mar; 48(3):351-6. PubMed ID: 6153354
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Brain-stem auditory evoked potentials in the rat: effects of gender, stimulus characteristics and ethanol sedation.
    Church MW, Williams HL, Holloway JA.
    Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1984 Jul; 59(4):328-39. PubMed ID: 6203722
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. The influence of click phase and rate upon latencies and latency distributions of the normal brain-stem auditory evoked potentials.
    Sand T, Sulg I.
    Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1984 Jun; 57(6):561-70. PubMed ID: 6202487
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Comparison between auditory brain stem responses evoked by rarefaction and condensation step functions and clicks.
    Tietze G, Pantev C.
    Audiology; 1986 Jun; 25(1):44-53. PubMed ID: 3954683
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Combined effect of click rate and stimulus polarity on BAEP latencies.
    Cassvan A, Ralescu S, Shames J, Medina E.
    Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1989 Jun; 29(7-8):453-8. PubMed ID: 2606072
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Influence of stimulus polarity on far-field auditory-evoked electrical responses in the chick.
    Brown-Borg HM, Beck MM, Jones TA.
    J Aud Res; 1986 Oct; 26(4):255-60. PubMed ID: 3436924
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Brain stem auditory evoked potentials from bone stimulation in dogs.
    Strain GM, Green KD, Twedt AC, Tedford BL.
    Am J Vet Res; 1993 Nov; 54(11):1817-21. PubMed ID: 8291757
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 6.