384 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22087927)
1. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: steady-state noise.
Smits C; Festen JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2987-98. PubMed ID: 22087927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The Danish hearing in noise test.
Nielsen JB; Dau T
Int J Audiol; 2011 Mar; 50(3):202-8. PubMed ID: 21319937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: II. Fluctuating noise.
Smits C; Festen JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):3004-15. PubMed ID: 23654404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Characterizing the Speech Reception Threshold in hearing-impaired listeners in relation to masker type and masker level.
Rhebergen KS; Pool RE; Dreschler WA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 24606285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise.
Christiansen C; Dau T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1655-66. PubMed ID: 22978894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise.
Smits C; Theo Goverts S; Festen JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1693-706. PubMed ID: 23464039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Do you hear the noise? The German matrix sentence test with a fixed noise level in subjects with normal hearing and hearing impairment.
Wardenga N; Batsoulis C; Wagener KC; Brand T; Lenarz T; Maier H
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():71-9. PubMed ID: 26555195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response.
Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):498-510. PubMed ID: 21233711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effect of companding on speech recognition in quiet and noise for listeners with ANSD.
Narne VK; Barman A; Deepthi M
Int J Audiol; 2014 Feb; 53(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 24237041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Speech understanding in noise with an eyeglass hearing aid: asymmetric fitting and the head shadow benefit of anterior microphones.
Mens LH
Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 21047292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: the German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype.
Zokoll MA; Wagener KC; Brand T; Buschermöhle M; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):697-707. PubMed ID: 22762202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Prediction of the intelligibility for speech in real-life background noises for subjects with normal hearing.
Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):169-75. PubMed ID: 18490862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Effects of reverberation and masker fluctuations on binaural unmasking of speech.
George EL; Festen JM; Goverts ST
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1581-91. PubMed ID: 22978887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
