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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19894841)

  • 1. Microscopic prediction of speech recognition for listeners with normal hearing in noise using an auditory model.
    Jürgens T; Brand T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):2635-48. PubMed ID: 19894841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Prediction of the influence of reverberation on binaural speech intelligibility in noise and in quiet.
    Rennies J; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2999-3012. PubMed ID: 22087928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Perception of clear fricatives by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners.
    Maniwa K; Jongman A; Wade T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1114-25. PubMed ID: 18247912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A computer model of auditory efferent suppression: implications for the recognition of speech in noise.
    Brown GJ; Ferry RT; Meddis R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Feb; 127(2):943-54. PubMed ID: 20136217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Microscopic prediction of speech intelligibility in spatially distributed speech-shaped noise for normal-hearing listeners.
    Geravanchizadeh M; Fallah A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):4004-15. PubMed ID: 26723354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Human phoneme recognition depending on speech-intrinsic variability.
    Meyer BT; Jürgens T; Wesker T; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Nov; 128(5):3126-41. PubMed ID: 21110608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effect of speech-intrinsic variations on human and automatic recognition of spoken phonemes.
    Meyer BT; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jan; 129(1):388-403. PubMed ID: 21303019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Contribution of high frequencies to speech recognition in quiet and noise in listeners with varying degrees of high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.
    Amos NE; Humes LE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Aug; 50(4):819-34. PubMed ID: 17675588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level.
    Summers V; Molis MR
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Apr; 47(2):245-56. PubMed ID: 15157127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. On the limited transfer of information with noise-induced hearing loss.
    Smoorenburg GF
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():38-46. PubMed ID: 2356737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.