440 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17902871)
21. Speech perception in older hearing impaired listeners: benefits of perceptual training.
Woods DL; Doss Z; Herron TJ; Arbogast T; Younus M; Ettlinger M; Yund EW
PLoS One; 2015; 10(3):e0113965. PubMed ID: 25730330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Contribution of consonant landmarks to speech recognition in simulated acoustic-electric hearing.
Chen F; Loizou PC
Ear Hear; 2010 Apr; 31(2):259-67. PubMed ID: 20081538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Perception of temporally processed speech by listeners with hearing impairment.
Calandruccio L; Doherty KA; Carney LH; Kikkeri HN
Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):512-23. PubMed ID: 17609613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparison of word-, sentence-, and phoneme-based training strategies in improving the perception of spectrally distorted speech.
Stacey PC; Summerfield AQ
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Apr; 51(2):526-38. PubMed ID: 18367694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Perceptual weighting of stop consonant cues by normal and impaired listeners in reverberation versus noise.
Hedrick MS; Younger MS
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Apr; 50(2):254-69. PubMed ID: 17463228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The benefit obtained from visually displayed text from an automatic speech recognizer during listening to speech presented in noise.
Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Kessens JM; Vlaming MS; Houtgast T
Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):838-52. PubMed ID: 18633325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Envelope following responses elicited by English sentences.
Choi JM; Purcell DW; Coyne JA; Aiken SJ
Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):637-50. PubMed ID: 23575462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees.
Gnansia D; Pressnitzer D; Péan V; Meyer B; Lorenzi C
Hear Res; 2010 Jun; 265(1-2):46-53. PubMed ID: 20197084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking.
Wang D; Kjems U; Pedersen MS; Boldt JB; Lunner T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Apr; 125(4):2336-47. PubMed ID: 19354408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The influence of talker differences on vowel identification by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
Nábĕlek AK; Czyzewski Z; Krishnan LA
J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Sep; 92(3):1228-46. PubMed ID: 1401512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Children's speech recognition scores: the Speech Intelligibility Index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level.
Scollie SD
Ear Hear; 2008 Aug; 29(4):543-56. PubMed ID: 18469717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. The roles of fundamental frequency contours and sentence context in Mandarin Chinese speech intelligibility.
Wang J; Shu H; Zhang L; Liu Z; Zhang Y
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jul; 134(1):EL91-7. PubMed ID: 23862913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The role of vowel and consonant fundamental frequency, envelope, and temporal fine structure cues to the intelligibility of words and sentences.
Fogerty D; Humes LE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Feb; 131(2):1490-501. PubMed ID: 22352519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise.
Xu L; Zheng Y
J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Sep; 122(3):1758. PubMed ID: 17927435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: acoustic characteristics of vowels.
Ferguson SH; Kewley-Port D
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Oct; 50(5):1241-55. PubMed ID: 17905909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
