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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25236151)

  • 1. Refining a model of hearing impairment using speech psychophysics.
    Jepsen ML; Dau T; Ghitza O
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Apr; 135(4):EL179-85. PubMed ID: 25236151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Better-ear glimpsing in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Best V; Mason CR; Kidd G; Iyer N; Brungart DS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):EL213-9. PubMed ID: 25698053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Acoustic and perceptual effects of magnifying interaural difference cues in a simulated "binaural" hearing aid.
    de Taillez T; Grimm G; Kollmeier B; Neher T
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S81-S91. PubMed ID: 28395561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Assessment of hearing aid algorithms using a master hearing aid: the influence of hearing aid experience on the relationship between speech recognition and cognitive capacity.
    Rählmann S; Meis M; Schulte M; Kießling J; Walger M; Meister H
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S105-S111. PubMed ID: 28449597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effects of noise vocoding on speech quality perception.
    Anderson MC; Arehart KH; Kates JM
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():75-83. PubMed ID: 24333929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing the efficacy of hearing-aid amplification using a phoneme test.
    Scheidiger C; Allen JB; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1739. PubMed ID: 28372055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the NAL Dynamic Conversations Test in older listeners with hearing loss.
    Best V; Keidser G; Freeston K; Buchholz JM
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):221-229. PubMed ID: 28826285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of combined dynamic compression and single channel noise reduction for hearing aid applications.
    Kortlang S; Chen Z; Gerkmann T; Kollmeier B; Hohmann V; Ewert SD
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S43-S54. PubMed ID: 28355947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of age and hearing loss on the intelligibility of interrupted speech.
    Shafiro V; Sheft S; Risley R; Gygi B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):745-56. PubMed ID: 25698009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Binaural model-based dynamic-range compression.
    Ernst SMA; Kortlang S; Grimm G; Bisitz T; Kollmeier B; Ewert SD
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S31-S42. PubMed ID: 29373937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users.
    Ng EH; Rudner M; Lunner T; Pedersen MS; Rönnberg J
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jul; 52(7):433-41. PubMed ID: 23550584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant.
    Lenarz T; James C; Cuda D; Fitzgerald O'Connor A; Frachet B; Frijns JH; Klenzner T; Laszig R; Manrique M; Marx M; Merkus P; Mylanus EA; Offeciers E; Pesch J; Ramos-Macias A; Robier A; Sterkers O; Uziel A
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Dec; 52(12):838-48. PubMed ID: 23992489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Measuring spectral and temporal resolution simultaneously: a comparison between two tests.
    van Esch TE; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jul; 50(7):477-90. PubMed ID: 21506893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.