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 *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19206808)

  • 1. Role of masker predictability in the cocktail party problem.
    Jones GL; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Dec; 124(6):3818-30. PubMed ID: 19206808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The intelligibility of speech in a harmonic masker varying in fundamental frequency contour, broadband temporal envelope, and spatial location.
    Leclère T; Lavandier M; Deroche MLD
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():1-10. PubMed ID: 28390253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Role of Binaural Temporal Fine Structure and Envelope Cues in Cocktail-Party Listening.
    Swaminathan J; Mason CR; Streeter TM; Best V; Roverud E; Kidd G
    J Neurosci; 2016 Aug; 36(31):8250-7. PubMed ID: 27488643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A cocktail party model of spatial release from masking by both noise and speech interferers.
    Jones GL; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1463-74. PubMed ID: 21895087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Spatial release from masking based on binaural processing for up to six maskers.
    Yost WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):2093. PubMed ID: 28372135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Application of a short-time version of the Equalization-Cancellation model to speech intelligibility experiments with speech maskers.
    Wan R; Durlach NI; Colburn HS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):768-76. PubMed ID: 25096111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Rönnberg J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep; 134(3):2225-34. PubMed ID: 23967952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effect of room acoustical parameters on speech reception thresholds and spatial release from masking.
    Biberger T; Ewert SD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Oct; 146(4):2188. PubMed ID: 31671969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Speech recognition in one- and two-talker maskers in school-age children and adults: Development of perceptual masking and glimpsing.
    Buss E; Leibold LJ; Porter HL; Grose JH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2650. PubMed ID: 28464682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Does it take older adults longer than younger adults to perceptually segregate a speech target from a background masker?
    Ben-David BM; Tse VY; Schneider BA
    Hear Res; 2012 Aug; 290(1-2):55-63. PubMed ID: 22609772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of nearby maskers on speech intelligibility in reverberant, multi-talker environments.
    Westermann A; Buchholz JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):2214. PubMed ID: 28372143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Does the degree of linguistic experience (native versus nonnative) modulate the degree to which listeners can benefit from a delay between the onset of the maskers and the onset of the target speech?
    Ben-David BM; Avivi-Reich M; Schneider BA
    Hear Res; 2016 Nov; 341():9-18. PubMed ID: 27496539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Psychometric functions for sentence recognition in sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noises.
    Shen Y; Manzano NK; Richards VM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):3613-24. PubMed ID: 26723318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Roles of the target and masker fundamental frequencies in voice segregation.
    Deroche ML; Culling JF; Chatterjee M; Limb CJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1225. PubMed ID: 25190396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests.
    Francart T; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 21091261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Masker location uncertainty reveals evidence for suppression of maskers in two-talker contexts.
    Allen K; Alais D; Shinn-Cunningham B; Carlile S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2043-53. PubMed ID: 21973359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
    Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
    Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The role of periodicity in perceiving speech in quiet and in background noise.
    Steinmetzger K; Rosen S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):3586-99. PubMed ID: 26723315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.