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 *

189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11926322)

  • 1. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 in multi-talker babble: a preliminary report.
    Wilson RH; Strouse A
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2002; 39(1):105-13. PubMed ID: 11926322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss.
    Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Children's speech recognition scores: the Speech Intelligibility Index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level.
    Scollie SD
    Ear Hear; 2008 Aug; 29(4):543-56. PubMed ID: 18469717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners' localization and spatial speech recognition abilities?
    Neher T; Laugesen S; Jensen NS; Kragelund L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1542-58. PubMed ID: 21895093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners' performance on the connected speech test.
    Sherbecoe RL; Studebaker GA
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):71-88. PubMed ID: 12598814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Bernstein JG; Grant KW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3358-72. PubMed ID: 19425676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level.
    Summers V; Molis MR
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Apr; 47(2):245-56. PubMed ID: 15157127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of two word-recognition tasks in multitalker babble: Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) and Words-in-Noise Test (WIN).
    Wilson RH; Cates WB
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008; 19(7):548-56. PubMed ID: 19248731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Perceptual integration between target speech and target-speech reflection reduces masking for target-speech recognition in younger adults and older adults.
    Huang Y; Huang Q; Chen X; Qu T; Wu X; Li L
    Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 244(1-2):51-65. PubMed ID: 18694813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss.
    Souza PE; Turner CW
    J Speech Hear Res; 1994 Jun; 37(3):655-61. PubMed ID: 8084195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests.
    Francart T; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 21091261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise.
    Ozimek E; Warzybok A; Kutzner D
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):444-54. PubMed ID: 20482292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Phonemic restoration by hearing-impaired listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss.
    Başkent D; Eiler CL; Edwards B
    Hear Res; 2010 Feb; 260(1-2):54-62. PubMed ID: 19922784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Recognition of digits in different types of noise by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Smits C; Houtgast T
    Int J Audiol; 2007 Mar; 46(3):134-44. PubMed ID: 17365067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Predicting the effect of hearing loss and audibility on amplified speech reception in a multi-talker listening scenario.
    Woods WS; Kalluri S; Pentony S; Nooraei N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4268-78. PubMed ID: 23742377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Word-recognition performance in interrupted noise by young listeners with normal hearing and older listeners with hearing loss.
    Wilson RH; McArdle R; Betancourt MB; Herring K; Lipton T; Chisolm TH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2010 Feb; 21(2):90-109. PubMed ID: 20166311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Contribution of high frequencies to speech recognition in quiet and noise in listeners with varying degrees of high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.
    Amos NE; Humes LE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Aug; 50(4):819-34. PubMed ID: 17675588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on Listeners With Normal Hearing and Listeners With Hearing Loss.
    Wilson RH; McArdle RA; Smith SL
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Aug; 50(4):844-56. PubMed ID: 17675590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.