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 *

326 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1482505)

  • 1. Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and paired-comparison judgements of speech intelligibility by older listeners.
    Purdy SC; Pavlovic CV
    Audiology; 1992; 31(5):254-71. PubMed ID: 1482505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    Başkent D; Eiler CL; Edwards B
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):370-80. PubMed ID: 17485986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Influence of high pass filtering on the intelligibility of amplitude-compressed speech.
    Vargo SW
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(3):163-7. PubMed ID: 528294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of training on naïve listeners' judgments of the speech intelligibility of children with severe-to-profound hearing loss.
    Ellis LW; Beltyukova SA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1114-23. PubMed ID: 18664708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of noise and distortion on speech quality judgments in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC; Harvey LO
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1150-64. PubMed ID: 17672661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reliability and validity of judgments of sound quality in elderly hearing aid wearers.
    Narendran MM; Humes LE
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):4-11. PubMed ID: 12598808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss.
    Shi LF; Doherty KA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1328-40. PubMed ID: 18664685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Rasch analysis of word identification and magnitude estimation scaling responses in measuring naive listeners' judgments of speech intelligibility of children with severe-to-profound hearing impairments.
    Beltyukova SA; Stone GM; Ellis LW
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1124-37. PubMed ID: 18664707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Speech enhancement by filtering in the loudness domain.
    Kollmeier B
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():207-14. PubMed ID: 2356729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Intelligibility of speech in noise at high presentation levels: effects of hearing loss and frequency region.
    Summers V; Cord MT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1130-7. PubMed ID: 17672659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Real-time multiband dynamic compression and noise reduction for binaural hearing aids.
    Kollmeier B; Peissig J; Hohmann V
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):82-94. PubMed ID: 8263832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.
    Baer T; Moore BC; Gatehouse S
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):49-72. PubMed ID: 8263829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Syllabic compression and speech intelligibility in hearing impaired listeners.
    Verschuure J; Dreschler WA; de Haan EH; van Cappellen M; Hammerschlag R; Maré MJ; Maas AJ; Hijmans AC
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():92-100. PubMed ID: 8153570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Development of a Danish speech intelligibility test.
    Nielsen JB; Dau T
    Int J Audiol; 2009; 48(10):729-41. PubMed ID: 19626512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of a noise reduction method--comparison between observed scores and scores predicted from STI.
    Ludvigsen C; Elberling C; Keidser G
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():50-5. PubMed ID: 8153564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech-clarity judgments of hearing-aid-processed speech in noise: differing polar patterns and acoustic environments.
    Amlani AM; Rakerd B; Punch JL
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Jun; 45(6):319-30. PubMed ID: 16777778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. How does linguistic complexity influence intelligibility in a German audiometric sentence intelligibility test?
    Uslar V; Ruigendijk E; Hamann C; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Sep; 50(9):621-31. PubMed ID: 21714708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Talker intelligibility differences in cochlear implant listeners.
    Green T; Katiri S; Faulkner A; Rosen S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Jun; 121(6):EL223-9. PubMed ID: 17552573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.