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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23039460)

  • 1. Set-size procedures for controlling variations in speech-reception performance with a fluctuating masker.
    Bernstein JG; Summers V; Iyer N; Brungart DS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2676-89. PubMed ID: 23039460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The fluctuating masker benefit for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners with equal audibility at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio.
    Jensen KK; Bernstein JGW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Apr; 145(4):2113. PubMed ID: 31046298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio.
    Bernstein JG; Brungart DS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):473-88. PubMed ID: 21786913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation.
    Ohlenforst B; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Wendt D; Naylor G; Wang Y; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():68-79. PubMed ID: 28622894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. On the near non-existence of "pure" energetic masking release for speech.
    Stone MA; Moore BC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Apr; 135(4):1967-77. PubMed ID: 25234995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response.
    Ohlenforst B; Wendt D; Kramer SE; Naylor G; Zekveld AA; Lunner T
    Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 365():90-99. PubMed ID: 29779607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test.
    Wendt D; Koelewijn T; Książek P; Kramer SE; Lunner T
    Hear Res; 2018 Nov; 369():67-78. PubMed ID: 29858121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release.
    Gnansia D; Jourdes V; Lorenzi C
    Hear Res; 2008 May; 239(1-2):60-8. PubMed ID: 18434049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 21921797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Rönnberg J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep; 134(3):2225-34. PubMed ID: 23967952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of priming on energetic and informational masking in a same-different task.
    Jones JA; Freyman RL
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(1):124-33. PubMed ID: 21841488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Influence of hearing loss on children's identification of spondee words in a speech-shaped noise or a two-talker masker.
    Leibold LJ; Hillock-Dunn A; Duncan N; Roush PA; Buss E
    Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):575-84. PubMed ID: 23492919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Psychometric functions for sentence recognition in sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noises.
    Shen Y; Manzano NK; Richards VM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):3613-24. PubMed ID: 26723318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Native and Non-native Speech Perception by Hearing-Impaired Listeners in Noise- and Speech Maskers.
    Kilman L; Zekveld A; Hällgren M; Rönnberg J
    Trends Hear; 2015 Apr; 19():. PubMed ID: 25910504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation?
    Hochmuth S; Jürgens T; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():23-34. PubMed ID: 26486466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An Italian matrix sentence test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise.
    Puglisi GE; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Visentin C; Astolfi A; Prodi N; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():44-50. PubMed ID: 26371592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.