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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2324388)

  • 1. Application of the articulation index to the speech recognition of normal and impaired listeners wearing hearing protection.
    Wilde G; Humes LE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Mar; 87(3):1192-9. PubMed ID: 2324388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Speech intelligibility in noise: effects of fluency and hearing protector type.
    Abel SM; Alberti PW; Haythornthwaite C; Riko K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1982 Mar; 71(3):708-15. PubMed ID: 7085974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss.
    Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Payton KL; Uchanski RM; Braida LD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Mar; 95(3):1581-92. PubMed ID: 8176061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Application of the Articulation Index and the Speech Transmission Index to the recognition of speech by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Humes LE; Dirks DD; Bell TS; Ahlstrom C; Kincaid GE
    J Speech Hear Res; 1986 Dec; 29(4):447-62. PubMed ID: 3795887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Amplified earmuffs: impact on speech intelligibility in industrial noise for listeners with hearing loss.
    Dolan TG; O'Loughlin D
    Am J Audiol; 2005 Jun; 14(1):80-5. PubMed ID: 16180971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of two clinical versions of the articulation index.
    Humes LE; Riker S
    Ear Hear; 1992 Dec; 13(6):406-9. PubMed ID: 1487102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluating a speech-reception threshold model for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Lee LW; Humes LE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 May; 93(5):2879-85. PubMed ID: 8315151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Perceived listening effort and speech intelligibility in reverberation and noise for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Schepker H; Haeder K; Rennies J; Holube I
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Dec; 55(12):738-747. PubMed ID: 27627181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [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. 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]  

  • 14. Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. II: Articulation index predictions.
    Dubno JR; Dirks DD; Schaefer AB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Jan; 85(1):355-64. PubMed ID: 2921418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing.
    Bronkhorst AW; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Dec; 92(6):3132-9. PubMed ID: 1474228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Völker C; Warzybok A; Ernst SM
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The interaction of hearing loss and level-dependent hearing protection on speech recognition in noise.
    Giguère C; Laroche C; Vaillancourt V
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Feb; 54 Suppl 1():S9-S18. PubMed ID: 25549169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.