202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24606286)
1. Prediction of consonant recognition in quiet for listeners with normal and impaired hearing using an auditory model.
Jürgens T; Ewert SD; Kollmeier B; Brand T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1506-17. PubMed ID: 24606286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Phoneme recognition in vocoded maskers by normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners.
Phatak SA; Grant KW
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):859-66. PubMed ID: 25096119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Sentence intelligibility during segmental interruption and masking by speech-modulated noise: Effects of age and hearing loss.
Fogerty D; Ahlstrom JB; Bologna WJ; Dubno JR
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jun; 137(6):3487-501. PubMed ID: 26093436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing.
Bernstein JG; Summers V; Grassi E; Grant KW
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Apr; 24(4):307-28. PubMed ID: 23636211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of Energy Equalization on the Intelligibility of Speech in Fluctuating Background Interference for Listeners With Hearing Impairment.
D'Aquila LA; Desloge JG; Reed CM; Braida LD
Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517710354. PubMed ID: 28602128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Effects of interferer facing orientation on speech perception by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
Strelcyk O; Pentony S; Kalluri S; Edwards B
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1419-32. PubMed ID: 24606279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Masking release for hearing-impaired listeners: The effect of increased audibility through reduction of amplitude variability.
Desloge JG; Reed CM; Braida LD; Perez ZD; D'Aquila LA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4452. PubMed ID: 28679277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners' localization and spatial speech recognition abilities?
Neher T; Laugesen S; Jensen NS; Kragelund L
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1542-58. PubMed ID: 21895093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Benefit from non-linear frequency compression hearing aids in a clinical setting: the effects of duration of experience and severity of high-frequency hearing loss.
Hopkins K; Khanom M; Dickinson AM; Munro KJ
Int J Audiol; 2014 Apr; 53(4):219-28. PubMed ID: 24617592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Behavioral measures of cochlear compression and temporal resolution as predictors of speech masking release in hearing-impaired listeners.
Gregan MJ; Nelson PB; Oxenham AJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):2895-912. PubMed ID: 24116426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Vowel identification by cochlear implant users: contributions of static and dynamic spectral cues.
Donaldson GS; Rogers CL; Cardenas ES; Russell BA; Hanna NH
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3021-8. PubMed ID: 24116437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Phoneme recognition in modulated maskers by normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners.
Phatak SA; Grant KW
J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1646-54. PubMed ID: 22978893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Multichannel compression hearing aids: effect of channel bandwidth on consonant and vowel identification by hearing-impaired listeners.
Strelcyk O; Li N; Rodriguez J; Kalluri S; Edwards B
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1598-606. PubMed ID: 23464029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detection threshold for sound distortion resulting from noise reduction in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1375. PubMed ID: 25190410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Speech quality evaluation of a sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm with normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():175-85. PubMed ID: 26232529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
