357 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21303019)
1. 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]
2. 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]
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. Analyzing phonetic confusions using formal concept analysis.
Peláez-Moreno C; García-Moral AI; Valverde-Albacete FJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Sep; 128(3):1377-90. PubMed ID: 20815472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The influence of age, hearing, and working memory on the speech comprehension benefit derived from an automatic speech recognition system.
Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Kessens JM; Vlaming MS; Houtgast T
Ear Hear; 2009 Apr; 30(2):262-72. PubMed ID: 19194286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. English vowel identification in long-term speech-shaped noise and multi-talker babble for English and Chinese listeners.
Mi L; Tao S; Wang W; Dong Q; Jin SH; Liu C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):EL391-7. PubMed ID: 23656099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Relationship between speech recognition in noise and sparseness.
Li G; Lutman ME; Wang S; Bleeck S
Int J Audiol; 2012 Feb; 51(2):75-82. PubMed ID: 22107445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The relative importance of spectral cues for vowel recognition in severe noise.
Swanepoel R; Oosthuizen DJ; Hanekom JJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2652-62. PubMed ID: 23039458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. A comparison of automatic and human speech recognition in null grammar.
Juneja A
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Mar; 131(3):EL256-61. PubMed ID: 22423817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test.
Cameron S; Dillon H; Newall P
Ear Hear; 2006 Feb; 27(1):30-42. PubMed ID: 16446563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Speech perception of noise with binary gains.
Wang D; Kjems U; Pedersen MS; Boldt JB; Lunner T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Oct; 124(4):2303-7. PubMed ID: 19062868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Modeling the use of durational information in human spoken-word recognition.
Scharenborg O
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jun; 127(6):3758-70. PubMed ID: 20550274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Talker-listener accent interactions in speech-in-noise recognition: effects of prosodic manipulation as a function of language experience.
Pinet M; Iverson P
J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Sep; 128(3):1357-65. PubMed ID: 20815470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Speech identification in noise: Contribution of temporal, spectral, and visual speech cues.
Kim J; Davis C; Groot C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Dec; 126(6):3246-57. PubMed ID: 20000938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise.
Gosselin PA; Gagné JP
Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):786-92. PubMed ID: 21916790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Adding irrelevant information to the content prime reduces the prime-induced unmasking effect on speech recognition.
Wu M; Li H; Gao Y; Lei M; Teng X; Wu X; Li L
Hear Res; 2012 Jan; 283(1-2):136-43. PubMed ID: 22101022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
