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 *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22038665)

  • 1. Algorithmic modeling of the irrelevant sound effect (ISE) by the hearing sensation fluctuation strength.
    Schlittmeier SJ; Weissgerber T; Kerber S; Fastl H; Hellbrück J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2012 Jan; 74(1):194-203. PubMed ID: 22038665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. What characterizes changing-state speech in affecting short-term memory? An EEG study on the irrelevant sound effect.
    Schlittmeier SJ; Weisz N; Bertrand O
    Psychophysiology; 2011 Dec; 48(12):1669-80. PubMed ID: 22067074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Detrimental effects of irrelevant speech on serial recall of visual items are reflected in reduced visual N1 and reduced theta activity.
    Weisz N; Schlittmeier SJ
    Cereb Cortex; 2006 Aug; 16(8):1097-105. PubMed ID: 16221927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluating signal-to-noise ratios, loudness, and related measures as indicators of airborne sound insulation.
    Park HK; Bradley JS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Sep; 126(3):1219-30. PubMed ID: 19739735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. The design and testing of a noise reduction algorithm based on spectral subtraction.
    Elberling C; Ludvigsen C; Keidser G
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():39-49. PubMed ID: 8153563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Top-down modulation of auditory processing: effects of sound context, musical expertise and attentional focus.
    Tervaniemi M; Kruck S; De Baene W; Schröger E; Alter K; Friederici AD
    Eur J Neurosci; 2009 Oct; 30(8):1636-42. PubMed ID: 19821835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction.
    Sarampalis A; Kalluri S; Edwards B; Hafter E
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2009 Oct; 52(5):1230-40. PubMed ID: 19380604
    [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. Cochlear implant-mediated perception of nonlinguistic sounds.
    Inverso Y; Limb CJ
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):505-14. PubMed ID: 20588119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Identification of environmental sounds with varying spectral resolution.
    Shafiro V
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jun; 29(3):401-20. PubMed ID: 18344871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of amplitude modulation of background noise on auditory-evoked magnetic fields.
    Hiraumi H; Nagamine T; Morita T; Naito Y; Fukuyama H; Ito J
    Brain Res; 2008 Nov; 1239():191-7. PubMed ID: 18778694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Audibility of American English vowels produced by English-, Chinese-, and Korean-native speakers in long-term speech-shaped noise.
    Liu C; Jin SH
    Hear Res; 2011 Dec; 282(1-2):49-55. PubMed ID: 21920420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The concept of signal-to-noise ratio in the modulation domain and speech intelligibility.
    Dubbelboer F; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Dec; 124(6):3937-46. PubMed ID: 19206818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of irrelevant speech and traffic noise on speech perception and cognitive performance in elementary school children.
    Klatte M; Meis M; Sukowski H; Schick A
    Noise Health; 2007; 9(36):64-74. PubMed ID: 18025757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Discrimination of speech and of complex nonspeech sounds of different temporal structure in the left and right cerebral hemispheres.
    Shtyrov Y; Kujala T; Palva S; Ilmoniemi RJ; Näätänen R
    Neuroimage; 2000 Dec; 12(6):657-63. PubMed ID: 11112397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Irrelevant sound disrupts speech production: exploring the relationship between short-term memory and experimentally induced slips of the tongue.
    Saito S; Baddeley A
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2004 Oct; 57(7):1309-40. PubMed ID: 15513248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sound quality characteristics of refrigerator noise in real living environments with relation to psychoacoustical and autocorrelation function parameters.
    Sato S; You J; Jeon JY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Jul; 122(1):314-25. PubMed ID: 17614491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.