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 *

527 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19380604)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults.
    Desjardins JL; Doherty KA
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):600-10. PubMed ID: 24622352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
    van den Tillaart-Haverkate M; de Ronde-Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517716844. PubMed ID: 28656807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Speech recognition and working memory capacity in young-elderly listeners: effects of hearing sensitivity.
    Cervera TC; Soler MJ; Dasi C; Ruiz JC
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2009 Sep; 63(3):216-26. PubMed ID: 19739905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss.
    Shi LF; Doherty KA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1328-40. PubMed ID: 18664685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing.
    Rudner M; Foo C; Rönnberg J; Lunner T
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):879-92. PubMed ID: 17982373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Visual cues and listening effort: individual variability.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA; Hornsby BW
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2011 Oct; 54(5):1416-30. PubMed ID: 21498576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Bernstein JG; Grant KW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3358-72. PubMed ID: 19425676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids.
    Luts H; Eneman K; Wouters J; Schulte M; Vormann M; Buechler M; Dillier N; Houben R; Dreschler WA; Froehlich M; Puder H; Grimm G; Hohmann V; Leijon A; Lombard A; Mauler D; Spriet A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Mar; 127(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 20329849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 22874643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: the effects of providing visual speech cues.
    Fraser S; Gagné JP; Alepins M; Dubois P
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2010 Feb; 53(1):18-33. PubMed ID: 19635945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Measuring the Influence of Noise Reduction on Listening Effort in Hearing-Impaired Listeners Using Response Times to an Arithmetic Task in Noise.
    Reinten I; De Ronde-Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler W
    Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211014437. PubMed ID: 34027725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Cognition and hearing aids.
    Lunner T; Rudner M; Rönnberg J
    Scand J Psychol; 2009 Oct; 50(5):395-403. PubMed ID: 19778387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluation of a noise reduction method--comparison between observed scores and scores predicted from STI.
    Ludvigsen C; Elberling C; Keidser G
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():50-5. PubMed ID: 8153564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Children's performance in complex listening conditions: effects of hearing loss and digital noise reduction.
    Pittman A
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2011 Aug; 54(4):1224-39. PubMed ID: 21330646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with cochlear implants.
    Fitzpatrick EM; Séguin C; Schramm DR; Armstrong S; Chénier J
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):590-9. PubMed ID: 19561509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 27.