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.
131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11791939)
21. Temporal envelope expansion of speech in noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: effects on identification performance and response times. Apoux F; Crouzet O; Lorenzi C Hear Res; 2001 Mar; 153(1-2):123-31. PubMed ID: 11223303 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Brainstem encoding of frequency-modulated sweeps is relevant to Mandarin concurrent-vowels identification for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Fu Z; Yang H; Chen F; Wu X; Chen J Hear Res; 2019 Sep; 380():123-136. PubMed ID: 31279277 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Effect of relative amplitude and formant transitions on perception of place of articulation by adult listeners with cochlear implants. Hedrick MS; Carney AE J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1997 Dec; 40(6):1445-57. PubMed ID: 9430763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Labeling of /s/ and [see text] by listeners with normal and impaired hearing, revisited. Hedrick MS; Younger MS J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2003 Jun; 46(3):636-48. PubMed ID: 14696991 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. Dubno JR; Schaefer AB J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Apr; 91(4 Pt 1):2110-21. PubMed ID: 1597602 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Effects of stimulus presentation level on stop consonant identification in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Plyler PN; Hedrick MS J Am Acad Audiol; 2002 Mar; 13(3):154-9. PubMed ID: 11936171 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Age-Related Compensation Mechanism Revealed in the Cortical Representation of Degraded Speech. Anderson S; Roque L; Gaskins CR; Gordon-Salant S; Goupell MJ J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2020 Aug; 21(4):373-391. PubMed ID: 32643075 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Human Frequency Following Responses to Vocoded Speech: Amplitude Modulation Versus Amplitude Plus Frequency Modulation. Suresh CH; Krishnan A; Luo X Ear Hear; 2020; 41(2):300-311. PubMed ID: 31246660 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Spectral cues to perception of /d, n, l/ by normal- and impaired-hearing listeners. Revoile SG; Pickett JM; Kozma-Spytek L J Acoust Soc Am; 1991 Aug; 90(2 Pt 1):787-98. PubMed ID: 1939885 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Identification of synthetic, voiced stop-consonants by hearing-impaired listeners. Raz I; Noffsinger D Audiology; 1985; 24(6):437-48. PubMed ID: 4084116 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Effect of acoustic cues on labeling fricatives and affricates. Hedrick M J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1997 Aug; 40(4):925-38. PubMed ID: 9263955 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Perception of synthetic speech sounds by hearing-impaired listeners. Godfrey JJ; Millay KK J Aud Res; 1980 Jul; 20(3):187-203. PubMed ID: 7347740 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Reduced frequency selectivity and the preservation of spectral contrast in noise. Leek MR; Summers V J Acoust Soc Am; 1996 Sep; 100(3):1796-806. PubMed ID: 8817905 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Effects of signal level and spectral contrast on vowel formant discrimination for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Woodall A; Liu C Am J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 22(1):94-104. PubMed ID: 23221306 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]