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 *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19894835)

  • 21. The effects of reverberant self- and overlap-masking on speech recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
    Desmond JM; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jun; 135(6):EL304-10. PubMed ID: 24907838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A dissociation between speech understanding and perceived reverberation.
    Ellis GM; Zahorik P
    Hear Res; 2019 Aug; 379():52-58. PubMed ID: 31075611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The effects of reverberation on a listener's ability to recognize target sentences in the presence of up to three synchronized masking sentences.
    Abouchacra KS; Besing J; Koehnke J; Letowski T
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jul; 50(7):468-76. PubMed ID: 21668326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Localization in reverberation with cochlear implants: predicting performance from basic psychophysical measures.
    Kerber S; Seeber BU
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2013 Jun; 14(3):379-92. PubMed ID: 23440517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Speech perception adjusts to stable spectrotemporal properties of the listening environment.
    Stilp CE; Anderson PW; Assgari AA; Ellis GM; Zahorik P
    Hear Res; 2016 Nov; 341():168-178. PubMed ID: 27596251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. USING MACHINE LEARNING TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF REVERBERATION AND NOISE IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTS.
    Chu KM; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
    Proc Meet Acoust; 2018 May; 33(1):. PubMed ID: 32582407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults.
    Neuman AC; Wroblewski M; Hajicek J; Rubinstein A
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):336-44. PubMed ID: 20215967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers.
    Qin MK; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Jul; 114(1):446-54. PubMed ID: 12880055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Speech Understanding With Various Maskers in Cochlear-Implant and Simulated Cochlear-Implant Hearing: Effects of Spectral Resolution and Implications for Masking Release.
    Croghan NBH; Smith ZM
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518787276. PubMed ID: 30022730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.
    Friesen LM; Shannon RV; Baskent D; Wang X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Aug; 110(2):1150-63. PubMed ID: 11519582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Speech intelligibility in rooms: Effect of prior listening exposure interacts with room acoustics.
    Zahorik P; Brandewie EJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Jul; 140(1):74. PubMed ID: 27475133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Factors Affecting Acoustics and Speech Intelligibility in the Operating Room: Size Matters.
    McNeer RR; Bennett CL; Horn DB; Dudaryk R
    Anesth Analg; 2017 Jun; 124(6):1978-1985. PubMed ID: 28525511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Recognition memory in noise for speech of varying intelligibility.
    Gilbert RC; Chandrasekaran B; Smiljanic R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):389-99. PubMed ID: 24437779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Using channel-specific statistical models to detect reverberation in cochlear implant stimuli.
    Desmond JM; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Aug; 134(2):1112-20. PubMed ID: 23927111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Speech perception by students with cochlear implants using sound-field systems in classrooms.
    Iglehart F
    Am J Audiol; 2004 Jun; 13(1):62-72. PubMed ID: 15248805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Objective intelligibility measurement of reverberant vocoded speech for normal-hearing listeners: Towards facilitating the development of speech enhancement algorithms for cochlear implants.
    Shahidi LK; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Mar; 155(3):2151-2168. PubMed ID: 38501923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing.
    Jørgensen S; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1475-87. PubMed ID: 21895088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Listening Effort by Native and Nonnative Listeners Due to Noise, Reverberation, and Talker Foreign Accent During English Speech Perception.
    Peng ZE; Wang LM
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2019 Apr; 62(4):1068-1081. PubMed ID: 30986135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Binaural speech intelligibility in rooms with variations in spatial location of sources and modulation depth of noise interferers.
    Collin B; Lavandier M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Aug; 134(2):1146-59. PubMed ID: 23927114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise.
    Van Zyl M; Hanekom JJ
    J Commun Disord; 2013; 46(5-6):449-64. PubMed ID: 24157128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.