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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22223091)

  • 1. Effect of rate-alteration on speech perception in noise in older adults with normal hearing and hearing impairment.
    Adams EM; Gordon-Hickey S; Morlas H; Moore R
    Am J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 21(1):22-32. PubMed ID: 22223091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Speech reception thresholds in noise and self-reported hearing disability in a general adult population.
    Smits C; Kramer SE; Houtgast T
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):538-49. PubMed ID: 16957503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older adults.
    Jenstad LM; Souza PE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Oct; 50(5):1123-38. PubMed ID: 17905900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.
    Mok M; Grayden D; Dowell RC; Lawrence D
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):338-51. PubMed ID: 16671848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults.
    Neuman AC; Wroblewski M; Hajicek J; Rubinstein A
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):336-44. PubMed ID: 20215967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Understanding speech in noise after correction of congenital unilateral aural atresia: effects of age in the emergence of binaural squelch but not in use of head-shadow.
    Gray L; Kesser B; Cole E
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2009 Sep; 73(9):1281-7. PubMed ID: 19581007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level.
    Summers V; Molis MR
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Apr; 47(2):245-56. PubMed ID: 15157127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Speech intelligibility and passive, level-dependent earplugs.
    Norin JA; Emanuel DC; Letowski TR
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):642-9. PubMed ID: 21407078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Intelligibility of speech in noise at high presentation levels: effects of hearing loss and frequency region.
    Summers V; Cord MT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1130-7. PubMed ID: 17672659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Auditory speech recognition and visual text recognition in younger and older adults: similarities and differences between modalities and the effects of presentation rate.
    Humes LE; Burk MH; Coughlin MP; Busey TA; Strauser LE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Apr; 50(2):283-303. PubMed ID: 17463230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of spatial separation, extended bandwidth, and compression speed on intelligibility in a competing-speech task.
    Moore BC; Füllgrabe C; Stone MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jul; 128(1):360-71. PubMed ID: 20649230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. A psychophysical evaluation of spectral enhancement.
    DiGiovanni JJ; Nelson PB; Schlauch RS
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Oct; 48(5):1121-35. PubMed ID: 16411801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing.
    Rudner M; Foo C; Rönnberg J; Lunner T
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):879-92. PubMed ID: 17982373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech recognition for unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant modes in the presence of uncorrelated noise sources.
    Ricketts TA; Grantham DW; Ashmead DH; Haynes DS; Labadie RF
    Ear Hear; 2006 Dec; 27(6):763-73. PubMed ID: 17086085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Freyaldenhoven MC; Plyler PN; Thelin JW; Hedrick MS
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Aug; 50(4):878-85. PubMed ID: 17675593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.