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 *

81 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22712933)

  • 1. Relationship between listening difficulty rating and objective measures in reverberant and noisy sound fields for young adults and elderly persons.
    Sato H; Morimoto M; Wada M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jun; 131(6):4596-605. PubMed ID: 22712933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Acceptable range of speech level in noisy sound fields for young adults and elderly persons.
    Sato H; Morimoto M; Ota R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1411-9. PubMed ID: 21895082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Acceptable range of speech level for both young and aged listeners in reverberant and quiet sound fields.
    Sato H; Sato H; Morimoto M; Ota R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Sep; 122(3):1616. PubMed ID: 17927421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Relationship between listening difficulty and acoustical objective measures in reverberant sound fields.
    Sato H; Morimoto M; Sato H; Wada M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Apr; 123(4):2087-93. PubMed ID: 18397016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effects of aging on word intelligibility and listening difficulty in various reverberant fields.
    Sato H; Sato H; Morimoto M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 May; 121(5 Pt1):2915-22. PubMed ID: 17550189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Audiovisual asynchrony detection and speech intelligibility in noise with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing impairment.
    Başkent D; Bazo D
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):582-92. PubMed ID: 21389856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Measuring the effects of reverberation and noise on sentence intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners.
    George EL; Goverts ST; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2010 Dec; 53(6):1429-39. PubMed ID: 20689027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of speech transmission in open public spaces affected by combined noises.
    Lee PJ; Jeon JY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):219-27. PubMed ID: 21786892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived speech quality.
    Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):420-36. PubMed ID: 20440116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise.
    Anderson Gosselin P; Gagné JP
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2011 Jun; 54(3):944-58. PubMed ID: 21060138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Listening difficulty as a subjective measure for evaluation of speech transmission performance in public spaces.
    Morimoto M; Sato H; Kobayashi M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Sep; 116(3):1607-13. PubMed ID: 15478426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Prediction of the influence of reverberation on binaural speech intelligibility in noise and in quiet.
    Rennies J; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2999-3012. PubMed ID: 22087928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reliability and validity of judgments of sound quality in elderly hearing aid wearers.
    Narendran MM; Humes LE
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):4-11. PubMed ID: 12598808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.