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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24270967)

  • 61. Predicting the speech reception threshold of cochlear implant listeners using an envelope-correlation based measure.
    Yousefian N; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):3399-405. PubMed ID: 23145620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Multi-microphone adaptive noise reduction strategies for coordinated stimulation in bilateral cochlear implant devices.
    Kokkinakis K; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 May; 127(5):3136-44. PubMed ID: 21117762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. The impact of reverberant self-masking and overlap-masking effects on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners (L).
    Kokkinakis K; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1099-102. PubMed ID: 21895052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Reverberation suppression in cochlear implants using a blind channel-selection strategy.
    Hazrati O; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4188-96. PubMed ID: 23742370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. 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]  

  • 66. The impact of reverberation on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant recipients.
    Kressner AA; Westermann A; Buchholz JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Aug; 144(2):1113. PubMed ID: 30180700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. The relation of hearing-specific patient-reported outcome measures with speech perception measures and acceptable noise levels in cochlear implant users.
    Dingemanse G; Goedegebure A
    Int J Audiol; 2020 Jun; 59(6):416-426. PubMed ID: 32091274
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. USING MACHINE LEARNING TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF REVERBERATION AND NOISE IN COCHLEAR IMPLANTS.
    Chu KM; Throckmorton CS; Collins LM; Mainsah BO
    Proc Meet Acoust; 2018 May; 33(1):. PubMed ID: 32582407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Nelson PB; Jin SH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 May; 115(5 Pt 1):2286-94. PubMed ID: 15139640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Impact of a moving noise masker on speech perception in cochlear implant users.
    Weissgerber T; Rader T; Baumann U
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(5):e0126133. PubMed ID: 25970594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
    Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Modelling speech reception thresholds and their improvements due to spatial noise reduction algorithms in bimodal cochlear implant users.
    Zedan A; Jürgens T; Williges B; Hülsmeier D; Kollmeier B
    Hear Res; 2022 Jul; 420():108507. PubMed ID: 35484022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments.
    Gifford RH; Dorman MF; Skarzynski H; Lorens A; Polak M; Driscoll CL; Roland P; Buchman CA
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):413-25. PubMed ID: 23446225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Application of Noise Reduction Algorithm ClearVoice in Cochlear Implant Processing: Effects on Noise Tolerance and Speech Intelligibility in Noise in Relation to Spectral Resolution.
    Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):357-67. PubMed ID: 25479412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Audiological outcome measures with the BONEBRIDGE transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implant: impact of noise, reverberation and signal processing features.
    Curca IA; Parsa V; Macpherson EA; Scollie S; Vansevenant K; Zimmerman K; Lewis-Teeter J; Allen P; Parnes L; Agrawal S
    Int J Audiol; 2020 Jul; 59(7):556-565. PubMed ID: 32069128
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Speech reception with different bilateral directional processing schemes: Influence of binaural hearing, audiometric asymmetry, and acoustic scenario.
    Neher T; Wagener KC; Latzel M
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():36-48. PubMed ID: 28783570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise.
    Gifford RH; Revit LJ
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2010; 21(7):441-51; quiz 487-8. PubMed ID: 20807480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Speech perception in simulated electric hearing exploits information-bearing acoustic change.
    Stilp CE; Goupell MJ; Kluender KR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Feb; 133(2):EL136-41. PubMed ID: 23363194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Effects of reverberation and masker fluctuations on binaural unmasking of speech.
    George EL; Festen JM; Goverts ST
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1581-91. PubMed ID: 22978887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Effects of reverberation on speech recognition in stationary and modulated noise by school-aged children and young adults.
    Wróblewski M; Lewis DE; Valente DL; Stelmachowicz PG
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(6):731-44. PubMed ID: 22732772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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