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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21325947)

  • 61. 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]  

  • 62. 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]  

  • 63. Acceptable noise level with Danish, Swedish, and non-semantic speech materials.
    Brännström KJ; Lantz J; Nielsen LH; Olsen SØ
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Mar; 51(3):146-56. PubMed ID: 22023486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Development of materials for the clinical assessment of speech recognition: the speech sound pattern discrimination test.
    Bochner JH; Garrison WM; Sussman JE; Burkard RF
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2003 Aug; 46(4):889-900. PubMed ID: 12959467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. The effect of perceived sound quality of speech in noisy speech perception by normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Akbarzadeh S; Lee S; Chen F; Tan CT
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2019 Jul; 2019():3119-3122. PubMed ID: 31946548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds predicts self-reported speech-in-noise performance.
    Anderson S; Parbery-Clark A; White-Schwoch T; Kraus N
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Feb; 56(1):31-43. PubMed ID: 22761320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: application to hearing aid selection.
    Cox RM; McDaniel DM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1984 Sep; 76(3):758-66. PubMed ID: 6491048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Speech intelligibility differences across sound classes with in-the-ear and free-field microphones in quiet.
    Estis JM; Parisi JA; Moore RE; Brungart DS
    Percept Mot Skills; 2011 Jun; 112(3):845-59. PubMed ID: 21853774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Development and evaluation of an English language measure of detection of word-final plurality markers: the University of Western Ontario Plurals Test.
    Glista D; Scollie S
    Am J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 21(1):76-81. PubMed ID: 22411713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Talker Differences in Clear and Conversational Speech: Perceived Sentence Clarity for Young Adults With Normal Hearing and Older Adults With Hearing Loss.
    Ferguson SH; Morgan SD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2018 Jan; 61(1):159-173. PubMed ID: 29270637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. [Evaluation of hearing aid rehabilitation using the Freiburg Monosyllabic Test].
    Hoppe U
    HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):589-94. PubMed ID: 27299893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Auditory externalization in hearing-impaired listeners: the effect of pinna cues and number of talkers.
    Boyd AW; Whitmer WM; Soraghan JJ; Akeroyd MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Mar; 131(3):EL268-74. PubMed ID: 22423819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. On the Cost of Introducing Speech-Like Properties to a Stimulus for Auditory Steady-State Response Measurements.
    Laugesen S; Rieck JE; Elberling C; Dau T; Harte JM
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518789302. PubMed ID: 30062913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Improving the performance of hearing aids in noisy environments based on deep learning technology.
    Lai YH; Zheng WZ; Tang ST; Fang SH; Liao WH; Tsao Y
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2018 Jul; 2018():404-408. PubMed ID: 30440419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Native and non-native listeners' judgements on the overall speech quality of hearing-impaired children.
    Boonen N; Kloots H; Gillis S
    Clin Linguist Phon; 2020 Dec; 34(12):1149-1168. PubMed ID: 32090641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Measurement of speech quality as a tool to optimize the fitting of a hearing aid.
    Preminger JE; Van Tasell DJ
    J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Jun; 38(3):726-36. PubMed ID: 7674663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Evaluation of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons.
    McDaniel DM; Cox RM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1992 Jun; 35(3):686-93. PubMed ID: 1608261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Use of listening strategies for the speech of individuals with dysarthria and cerebral palsy.
    Hustad KC; Dardis CM; Kramper AJ
    Augment Altern Commun; 2011 Mar; 27(1):5-15. PubMed ID: 21355809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Hearing aid fitting for visual and hearing impaired patients with Usher syndrome type IIa.
    Hartel BP; Agterberg MJH; Snik AF; Kunst HPM; van Opstal AJ; Bosman AJ; Pennings RJE
    Clin Otolaryngol; 2017 Aug; 42(4):805-814. PubMed ID: 27759911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Identification and discrimination of bilingual talkers across languages.
    Winters SJ; Levi SV; Pisoni DB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Jun; 123(6):4524-38. PubMed ID: 18537401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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