428 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15324282)
1. The effect of talker- and listener-related factors on intelligibility for a real-word, open-set perception test.
Markham D; Hazan V
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Aug; 47(4):725-37. PubMed ID: 15324282
[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. Acoustic-phonetic correlates of talker intelligibility for adults and children.
Hazan V; Markham D
J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Nov; 116(5):3108-18. PubMed ID: 15603156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Intelligibility of emotional speech in younger and older adults.
Dupuis K; Pichora-Fuller MK
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):695-707. PubMed ID: 25127327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S).
Cameron S; Dillon H
Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):196-211. PubMed ID: 17496671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effect of presentation level on memory performance.
Heinrich A; Schneider BA
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):524-32. PubMed ID: 21278574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Acoustic differences, listener expectations, and the perceptual accommodation of talker variability.
Magnuson JS; Nusbaum HC
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Apr; 33(2):391-409. PubMed ID: 17469975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Impact of talker variability on word recognition in non-native listeners.
van Dommelen WA; Hazan V
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1690-9. PubMed ID: 22978897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble, and stationary noise.
Lu Y; Cooke M
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Nov; 124(5):3261-75. PubMed ID: 19045809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Influence of listening conditions and listener characteristics on intelligibility of dysarthric speech.
Pennington L; Miller N
Clin Linguist Phon; 2007 May; 21(5):393-403. PubMed ID: 17468997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: vowel intelligibility for normal-hearing listeners.
Ferguson SH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Oct; 116(4 Pt 1):2365-73. PubMed ID: 15532667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Second-language experience and speech-in-noise recognition: effects of talker-listener accent similarity.
Pinet M; Iverson P; Huckvale M
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1653-62. PubMed ID: 21895102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Visual phonemic ambiguity and speechreading.
Lidestam B; Beskow J
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Aug; 49(4):835-47. PubMed ID: 16908878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Neural bases of talker normalization.
Wong PC; Nusbaum HC; Small SL
J Cogn Neurosci; 2004 Sep; 16(7):1173-84. PubMed ID: 15453972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Perception of coarticulatory information in normal speech and dysarthria.
Tjaden K; Sussman J
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Aug; 49(4):888-902. PubMed ID: 16908883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Are there sex effects for speech intelligibility in American English? Examining the influence of talker, listener, and methodology.
Yoho SE; Borrie SA; Barrett TS; Whittaker DB
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2019 Feb; 81(2):558-570. PubMed ID: 30506326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit.
Bent T; Bradlow AR
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Sep; 114(3):1600-10. PubMed ID: 14514213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Intelligibility of Noise-Adapted and Clear Speech in Child, Young Adult, and Older Adult Talkers.
Smiljanic R; Gilbert RC
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2017 Nov; 60(11):3069-3080. PubMed ID: 29075748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Speech perception in children with cochlear implants: effects of lexical difficulty, talker variability, and word length.
Kirk KI; Hay-McCutcheon M; Sehgal ST; Miyamoto RT
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl; 2000 Dec; 185():79-81. PubMed ID: 11141016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
