297 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24906905)
1. Variations in the slope of the psychometric functions for speech intelligibility: a systematic survey.
MacPherson A; Akeroyd MA
Trends Hear; 2014 Jun; 18():. PubMed ID: 24906905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression.
Grose JH; Griz S; Pacífico FA; Advíncula KP; Menezes DC
Int J Audiol; 2015 Apr; 54(4):274-81. PubMed ID: 25630394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Explaining intelligibility in speech-modulated maskers using acoustic glimpse analysis.
Gibbs BE; Fogerty D
J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jun; 143(6):EL449. PubMed ID: 29960446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Laboratory evaluation of an optimised internet-based speech-in-noise test for occupational high-frequency hearing loss screening: Occupational Earcheck.
Sheikh Rashid M; Leensen MCJ; de Laat JAPM; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2017 Nov; 56(11):844-853. PubMed ID: 28587489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Linking dynamic-range compression across the ears can improve speech intelligibility in spatially separated noise.
Wiggins IM; Seeber BU
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Feb; 133(2):1004-16. PubMed ID: 23363117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of periodic masker interruption on the intelligibility of interrupted speech.
Iyer N; Brungart DS; Simpson BD
J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Sep; 122(3):1693. PubMed ID: 17927429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test.
Warzybok A; Zokoll M; Wardenga N; Ozimek E; Boboshko M; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():35-43. PubMed ID: 25843088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Spatial release from masking based on binaural processing for up to six maskers.
Yost WA
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):2093. PubMed ID: 28372135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Susceptibility to interference by music and speech maskers in middle-aged adults.
Başkent D; van Engelshoven S; Galvin JJ
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):EL147-53. PubMed ID: 24606308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Optimization of the Dutch matrix test by random selection of sentences from a preselected subset.
Houben R; Dreschler WA
Trends Hear; 2015 May; 19():. PubMed ID: 25964195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Sentence perception in listening conditions having similar speech intelligibility indices.
Gustafson SJ; Pittman AL
Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):34-40. PubMed ID: 21047291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Development and evaluation of the British English coordinate response measure speech-in-noise test as an occupational hearing assessment tool.
Semeraro HD; Rowan D; van Besouw RM; Allsopp AA
Int J Audiol; 2017 Oct; 56(10):749-758. PubMed ID: 28537138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The effect of nearby maskers on speech intelligibility in reverberant, multi-talker environments.
Westermann A; Buchholz JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):2214. PubMed ID: 28372143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
van den Tillaart-Haverkate M; de Ronde-Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517716844. PubMed ID: 28656807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: the German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype.
Zokoll MA; Wagener KC; Brand T; Buschermöhle M; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):697-707. PubMed ID: 22762202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
