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 *

219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21325947)

  • 41. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.
    Baer T; Moore BC; Gatehouse S
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):49-72. PubMed ID: 8263829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Differences between speech-shaped test stimuli in analyzing systems and the effect on measured hearing aid gain.
    Keidser G; Dillon H; Convery E; O'Brien A
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):437-40. PubMed ID: 20090529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The placebo effect and the influence of participant expectation on hearing aid trials.
    Dawes P; Powell S; Munro KJ
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(6):767-74. PubMed ID: 21730857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. A comparison between the first-fit settings of two multichannel digital signal-processing strategies: music quality ratings and speech-in-noise scores.
    Higgins P; Searchfield G; Coad G
    Am J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 21(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 22361320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The effect of spatial separation of speech and noise sources on the optimal setting of the master hearing aid.
    Lawrence DW; Franks JR
    J Am Aud Soc; 1978; 4(2):45-51. PubMed ID: 738914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners.
    Cox RM; Alexander GC; Rivera IM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1991 Aug; 34(4):904-15. PubMed ID: 1956197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. A comparison of speech intelligibility and subjective quality with hearing-aid processing in older adults with hearing loss.
    Arehart KH; Chon SH; Lundberg EMH; Harvey LO; Kates JM; Anderson MC; Rallapalli VH; Souza PE
    Int J Audiol; 2022 Jan; 61(1):46-58. PubMed ID: 33913795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Clear versus casual consonant identification by hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners.
    Makashay MJ; Solomon NP
    Clin Linguist Phon; 2020 Aug; 34(8):734-755. PubMed ID: 31801385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Auditory profiling and hearing-aid satisfaction in hearing-aid candidates.
    Thorup N; Santurette S; Jørgensen S; Kjærbøl E; Dau T; Friis M
    Dan Med J; 2016 Oct; 63(10):. PubMed ID: 27697129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Development of the speech test signal in Brazilian Portuguese for real-ear measurement.
    Garolla LP; Scollie SD; Martinelli Iório MC
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Aug; 52(8):572-6. PubMed ID: 23713471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Effects of hearing loss and language proficiency on speech intelligibility over radio transmission with tactical communication devices.
    Giguère C; Vaillancourt V; Laroche C
    Int J Audiol; 2020 Feb; 59(sup1):S31-S39. PubMed ID: 31714149
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Relationship between listening difficulty rating and objective measures in reverberant and noisy sound fields for young adults and elderly persons.
    Sato H; Morimoto M; Wada M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jun; 131(6):4596-605. PubMed ID: 22712933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech: results for listeners with hearing loss.
    Kozma-Spytek L; Kates JM; Revoile SG
    J Speech Hear Res; 1996 Dec; 39(6):1115-23. PubMed ID: 8959597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Development and preliminary evaluation of a new test of ongoing speech comprehension.
    Best V; Keidser G; Buchholz JM; Freeston K
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(1):45-52. PubMed ID: 26158403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons.
    Cox RM; McDaniel DM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1989 Jun; 32(2):347-52. PubMed ID: 2739387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Listener-assessed intelligibility of hearing aid-processed speech.
    Punch JL; Howard MT
    J Am Aud Soc; 1978; 4(2):69-76. PubMed ID: 738919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Development of the A§E test battery for assessment of pitch perception in speech.
    Heeren W; Coene M; Vaerenberg B; Avram A; Cardinaletti A; del Bo L; Pascu A; Volpato F; Govaerts PJ
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2012 Nov; 13(4):206-19. PubMed ID: 22449360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech.
    Kates JM; Kozma-Spytek L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Jun; 95(6):3586-94. PubMed ID: 8046148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Evaluation of an articulation-index based model for predicting the effects of adaptive frequency response hearing aids.
    Fabry DA; Van Tasell DJ
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Dec; 33(4):676-89. PubMed ID: 2273883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.