215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15603154)
1. Speech perception and talker segregation: effects of level, pitch, and tactile support with multiple simultaneous talkers.
Drullman R; Bronkhorst AW
J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Nov; 116(5):3090-8. PubMed ID: 15603154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Informational Masking Effects on Neural Encoding of Stimulus Onset and Acoustic Change.
Niemczak CE; Vander Werff KR
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):156-167. PubMed ID: 29782442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: effect of masker type.
Deroche ML; Culling JF
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):EL465-70. PubMed ID: 24181992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers.
Stickney GS; Zeng FG; Litovsky R; Assmann P
J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Aug; 116(2):1081-91. PubMed ID: 15376674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers.
Brungart DS; Simpson BD; Ericson MA; Scott KR
J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Nov; 110(5 Pt 1):2527-38. PubMed ID: 11757942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding.
Rosen S; Souza P; Ekelund C; Majeed AA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2431-43. PubMed ID: 23556608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker.
Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 21921797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effectiveness of Two-Talker Maskers That Differ in Talker Congruity and Perceptual Similarity to the Target Speech.
Calandruccio L; Buss E; Bowdrie K
Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517709385. PubMed ID: 29169315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Interaural level differences do not suffice for restoring spatial release from masking in simulated cochlear implant listening.
Ihlefeld A; Litovsky RY
PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e45296. PubMed ID: 23028914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition.
Freyman RL; Balakrishnan U; Helfer KS
J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 May; 115(5 Pt 1):2246-56. PubMed ID: 15139635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing.
Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2084-94. PubMed ID: 12703719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Multitalker speech perception with ideal time-frequency segregation: effects of voice characteristics and number of talkers.
Brungart DS; Chang PS; Simpson BD; Wang D
J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Jun; 125(6):4006-22. PubMed ID: 19507982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of language, spatial factors, masker type and memory span on speech-in-noise thresholds in sequential bilingual children.
MacCutcheon D; Pausch F; Fels J; Ljung R
Scand J Psychol; 2018 Dec; 59(6):567-577. PubMed ID: 30137681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effects of target-masker contextual similarity on the multimasker penalty in a three-talker diotic listening task.
Iyer N; Brungart DS; Simpson BD
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Nov; 128(5):2998-10. PubMed ID: 21110595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech.
Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Sep; 118(3 Pt 1):1274-7. PubMed ID: 16240788
[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. 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]
20. The influence of informational masking in reverberant, multi-talker environments.
Westermann A; Buchholz JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Aug; 138(2):584-93. PubMed ID: 26328677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
