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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23598772)

  • 21. Development of a Danish speech intelligibility test.
    Nielsen JB; Dau T
    Int J Audiol; 2009; 48(10):729-41. PubMed ID: 19626512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Some aspects of methodology in speech audiometry.
    Hagerman B
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1984; 21():1-25. PubMed ID: 6589731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Polish sentence tests for measuring the intelligibility of speech in interfering noise.
    Ozimek E; Kutzner D; Sek A; Wicher A
    Int J Audiol; 2009; 48(7):433-43. PubMed ID: 19925330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Prediction of Individual Cochlear Implant Recipient Speech Perception With the Output Signal to Noise Ratio Metric.
    Watkins GD; Swanson BA; Suaning GJ
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1270-1281. PubMed ID: 32053546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.
    Gifford RH; Shallop JK; Peterson AM
    Audiol Neurootol; 2008; 13(3):193-205. PubMed ID: 18212519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.
    Nilsson M; Soli SD; Sullivan JA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Feb; 95(2):1085-99. PubMed ID: 8132902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Development and evaluation of a mixed gender, multi-talker matrix sentence test in Australian English.
    Kelly H; Lin G; Sankaran N; Xia J; Kalluri S; Carlile S
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Feb; 56(2):85-91. PubMed ID: 27758153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Cochlear implant optimized noise reduction.
    Mauger SJ; Arora K; Dawson PW
    J Neural Eng; 2012 Dec; 9(6):065007. PubMed ID: 23187159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise.
    Ozimek E; Warzybok A; Kutzner D
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):444-54. PubMed ID: 20482292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The North American Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences test (NA LiSN-S): normative data and test-retest reliability studies for adolescents and young adults.
    Brown DK; Cameron S; Martin JS; Watson C; Dillon H
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2010; 21(10):629-41. PubMed ID: 21376004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Speech understanding in noise with the Roger Pen, Naida CI Q70 processor, and integrated Roger 17 receiver in a multi-talker network.
    De Ceulaer G; Bestel J; Mülder HE; Goldbeck F; de Varebeke SP; Govaerts PJ
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2016 May; 273(5):1107-14. PubMed ID: 25983309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Content and procedural learning in repeated sentence tests of speech perception.
    Yund EW; Woods DL
    Ear Hear; 2010 Dec; 31(6):769-78. PubMed ID: 20562624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of Test Realism on Speech-in-noise Outcomes in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.
    Badajoz-Davila J; Buchholz JM
    Ear Hear; 2021 Nov-Dec 01; 42(6):1687-1698. PubMed ID: 34010247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Evaluation of TIMIT sentence list equivalency with adult cochlear implant recipients.
    King SE; Firszt JB; Reeder RM; Holden LK; Strube M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):313-31. PubMed ID: 22533975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effect of preoperative residual hearing on speech perception after cochlear implantation.
    Adunka OF; Buss E; Clark MS; Pillsbury HC; Buchman CA
    Laryngoscope; 2008 Nov; 118(11):2044-9. PubMed ID: 18813141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The French digit triplet test: a hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise.
    Jansen S; Luts H; Wagener KC; Frachet B; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2010 May; 49(5):378-87. PubMed ID: 20380611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.