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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12353604)

  • 1. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects.
    Hagerman B
    Int J Audiol; 2002 Sep; 41(6):321-9. PubMed ID: 12353604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effect of presentation level and compression characteristics on sentence recognition in modulated noise.
    Olsen HL; Olofsson A; Hagerman B
    Int J Audiol; 2004 May; 43(5):283-94. PubMed ID: 15357412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Predicted and measured speech recognition performance in noise with linear amplification.
    Magnusson L; Karlsson M; Leijon A
    Ear Hear; 2001 Feb; 22(1):46-57. PubMed ID: 11271975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Dynamic relation between working memory capacity and speech recognition in noise during the first 6 months of hearing aid use.
    Ng EH; Classon E; Larsby B; Arlinger S; Lunner T; Rudner M; Rönnberg J
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Speech recognition and just-follow-conversation tasks for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners with different maskers.
    Larsby B; Arlinger S
    Audiology; 1994; 33(3):165-76. PubMed ID: 8042937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods.
    Humes L; Hackett T
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1990 Apr; 1(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 2132584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Speech intelligibility in noisy environments with one- and two-microphone hearing aids.
    Wouters J; Litière L; van Wieringen A
    Audiology; 1999; 38(2):91-8. PubMed ID: 10206518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Non-flat audiograms in sensorineural hearing loss and speech perception.
    Andrade KC; Menezes Pde L; Carnaúba AT; Rodrigues RG; Leal Mde C; Pereira LD
    Clinics (Sao Paulo); 2013 Jun; 68(6):815-9. PubMed ID: 23778471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing.
    Rudner M; Foo C; Rönnberg J; Lunner T
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):879-92. PubMed ID: 17982373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality.
    Boymans M; Dreschler WA
    Audiology; 2000; 39(5):260-8. PubMed ID: 11093610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Killion MC; Niquette PA; Gudmundsen GI; Revit LJ; Banerjee S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Oct; 116(4 Pt 1):2395-405. PubMed ID: 15532670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Children's speech recognition in noise using omni-directional and dual-microphone hearing aid technology.
    Gravel JS; Fausel N; Liskow C; Chobot J
    Ear Hear; 1999 Feb; 20(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 10037061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners.
    George EL; Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Goverts ST; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Apr; 121(4):2362-75. PubMed ID: 17471748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Speech recognition ability in noise and its relationship to perceived hearing aid benefit.
    Cord MT; Leek MR; Walden BE
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2000 Oct; 11(9):475-83. PubMed ID: 11057731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effect of intensity perturbations on speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    van Schijndel NH; Houtgast T; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 May; 109(5 Pt 1):2202-10. PubMed ID: 11386571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of the NAL(R) and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids.
    Peters RW; Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
    Br J Audiol; 2000 Feb; 34(1):21-36. PubMed ID: 10759075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Spectral contributions to the benefit from spatial separation of speech and noise.
    Dubno JR; Ahlstrom JB; Horwitz AR
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2002 Dec; 45(6):1297-310. PubMed ID: 12546495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Sentence identification in noise and hearing-handicap questionnaires.
    Tyler RS; Smith PA
    Scand Audiol; 1983; 12(4):285-92. PubMed ID: 6665513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Benefits of amplification for speech recognition in background noise.
    Turner CW; Henry BA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Oct; 112(4):1675-80. PubMed ID: 12398472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.