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.
23. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation? Hochmuth S; Jürgens T; Brand T; Kollmeier B Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():23-34. PubMed ID: 26486466 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Speech intelligibility in rooms: Effect of prior listening exposure interacts with room acoustics. Zahorik P; Brandewie EJ J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Jul; 140(1):74. PubMed ID: 27475133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Use of an Application to Verify Classroom Acoustic Recommendations for Children Who Are Hard of Hearing in a General Education Setting. Spratford M; Walker EA; McCreery RW Am J Audiol; 2019 Dec; 28(4):927-934. PubMed ID: 31682768 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Information-bearing acoustic change outperforms duration in predicting intelligibility of full-spectrum and noise-vocoded sentences. Stilp CE J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1518-29. PubMed ID: 24606287 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of category goodness of /t/ and /k/ in typical and misarticulated children's speech. Strömbergsson S; Salvi G; House D J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jun; 137(6):3422-35. PubMed ID: 26093431 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Subjective Experience of Speech Depending on the Acoustic Treatment in an Ordinary Room. Arvidsson E; Nilsson E; Bard-Hagberg D; Karlsson OJI Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Nov; 18(23):. PubMed ID: 34886000 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Perceptual and acoustical analysis of alaryngeal speech: determinants of intelligibility. Drummond S; Dancer J; Krueger K; Spring G Percept Mot Skills; 1996 Dec; 83(3 Pt 1):801-2. PubMed ID: 8961316 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing. Jørgensen S; Dau T J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1475-87. PubMed ID: 21895088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Acoustic evaluation and adjustment of an open-plan office through architectural design and noise control. Passero CR; Zannin PH Appl Ergon; 2012 Nov; 43(6):1066-71. PubMed ID: 22507599 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Towards measuring the Speech Transmission Index in fluctuating noise: Accuracy and limitations. van Schoonhoven J; Rhebergen KS; Dreschler WA J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Feb; 141(2):818. PubMed ID: 28253636 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Ten Ways to Provide a High-Quality Acoustical Environment in Schools. Siebein GW; Gold MA; Siebein GW; Ermann MG Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch; 2000 Oct; 31(4):376-384. PubMed ID: 27764477 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Reverberation time and maximum background-noise level for classrooms from a comparative study of speech intelligibility metrics. Bistafa SR; Bradley JS J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Feb; 107(2):861-75. PubMed ID: 10687696 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]