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 *

225 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21895082)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Acceptable noise level (ANL) with Danish and non-semantic speech materials in adult hearing-aid users.
    Olsen SØ; Lantz J; Nielsen LH; Brännström KJ
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):678-88. PubMed ID: 22731922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The intelligibility of Lombard speech for non-native listeners.
    Cooke M; Lecumberri ML
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):1120-9. PubMed ID: 22894231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. An adaptive clinical test of temporal resolution: age effects.
    Lister JJ; Roberts RA; Lister FL
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jun; 50(6):367-74. PubMed ID: 21299377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Improvement of intelligibility of ideal binary-masked noisy speech by adding background noise.
    Cao S; Li L; Wu X
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Apr; 129(4):2227-36. PubMed ID: 21476677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The influence of spectral characteristics of early reflections on speech intelligibility.
    Arweiler I; Buchholz JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Aug; 130(2):996-1005. PubMed ID: 21877812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
    van den Tillaart-Haverkate M; de Ronde-Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517716844. PubMed ID: 28656807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Modeling speech intelligibility in quiet and noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Rhebergen KS; Lyzenga J; Dreschler WA; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Mar; 127(3):1570-83. PubMed ID: 20329857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Masked speech perception across the adult lifespan: Impact of age and hearing impairment.
    Goossens T; Vercammen C; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():109-124. PubMed ID: 27845259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Perceptual effects of noise reduction by time-frequency masking of noisy speech.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2690-9. PubMed ID: 23039461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise.
    Hochmuth S; Brand T; Zokoll MA; Castro FZ; Wardenga N; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Jul; 51(7):536-44. PubMed ID: 22537033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners' localization and spatial speech recognition abilities?
    Neher T; Laugesen S; Jensen NS; Kragelund L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1542-58. PubMed ID: 21895093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The efficacy of a multichannel hearing aid in which the gain is controlled by the minima in the temporal signal envelope.
    Festen JM; van Dijkhuizen JN; Plomp R
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():101-10. PubMed ID: 8153556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Aircraft noise and speech intelligibility in an outdoor living space.
    Alvarsson JJ; Nordström H; Lundén P; Nilsson ME
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jun; 135(6):3455-62. PubMed ID: 24907809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.