185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17225425)
1. Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise.
Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Dec; 120(6):3988-97. PubMed ID: 17225425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners.
Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Apr; 117(4 Pt 1):2181-92. PubMed ID: 15898659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prediction of the intelligibility for speech in real-life background noises for subjects with normal hearing.
Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):169-75. PubMed ID: 18490862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: II. Fluctuating noise.
Smits C; Festen JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):3004-15. PubMed ID: 23654404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Modelling the speech reception threshold in non-stationary noise in hearing-impaired listeners as a function of level.
Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; de Laat JA; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2010 Nov; 49(11):856-65. PubMed ID: 20936997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Measuring the threshold for speech reception by adaptive variation of the signal bandwidth. II. Hearing-impaired listeners.
Noordhoek IM; Houtgast T; Festen JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Mar; 107(3):1685-96. PubMed ID: 10738821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests.
Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B; Brand T; Jürgens T
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():62-70. PubMed ID: 26097982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise.
Christiansen C; Dau T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1655-66. PubMed ID: 22978894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Characterizing the Speech Reception Threshold in hearing-impaired listeners in relation to masker type and masker level.
Rhebergen KS; Pool RE; Dreschler WA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 24606285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The combined effects of reverberation and nonstationary noise on sentence intelligibility.
George EL; Festen JM; Houtgast T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Aug; 124(2):1269-77. PubMed ID: 18681613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Coherence and the speech intelligibility index.
Kates JM; Arehart KH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Apr; 117(4 Pt 1):2224-37. PubMed ID: 15898663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Matrix sentence intelligibility prediction using an automatic speech recognition system.
Schädler MR; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():100-7. PubMed ID: 26383042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Prediction of speech intelligibility in spatial noise and reverberation for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
Beutelmann R; Brand T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Jul; 120(1):331-42. PubMed ID: 16875230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Revision and validation of a binaural model for speech intelligibility in noise.
Jelfs S; Culling JF; Lavandier M
Hear Res; 2011 May; 275(1-2):96-104. PubMed ID: 21156201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Phoneme recognition in vocoded maskers by normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners.
Phatak SA; Grant KW
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):859-66. PubMed ID: 25096119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
Völker C; Warzybok A; Ernst SM
Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Modeling speech intelligibility in quiet and noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
Rhebergen KS; Lyzenga J; Dreschler WA; Festen JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Mar; 127(3):1570-83. PubMed ID: 20329857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. On the near non-existence of "pure" energetic masking release for speech.
Stone MA; Moore BC
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Apr; 135(4):1967-77. PubMed ID: 25234995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: steady-state noise.
Smits C; Festen JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2987-98. PubMed ID: 22087927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
