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 *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25681327)

  • 1. The just-noticeable difference in speech-to-noise ratio.
    McShefferty D; Whitmer WM; Akeroyd MA
    Trends Hear; 2015 Feb; 19():. PubMed ID: 25681327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Just-Meaningful Difference in Speech-to-Noise Ratio.
    McShefferty D; Whitmer WM; Akeroyd MA
    Trends Hear; 2016 Feb; 20():. PubMed ID: 26834121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Electric and acoustic harmonic integration predicts speech-in-noise performance in hybrid cochlear implant users.
    Bonnard D; Schwalje A; Gantz B; Choi I
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():223-230. PubMed ID: 29980380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Characterizing the Speech Reception Threshold in hearing-impaired listeners in relation to masker type and masker level.
    Rhebergen KS; Pool RE; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 24606285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The effects of selective consonant amplification on sentence recognition in noise by hearing-impaired listeners.
    Saripella R; Loizou PC; Thibodeau L; Alford JA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):3028-37. PubMed ID: 22087930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Do you hear the noise? The German matrix sentence test with a fixed noise level in subjects with normal hearing and hearing impairment.
    Wardenga N; Batsoulis C; Wagener KC; Brand T; Lenarz T; Maier H
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():71-9. PubMed ID: 26555195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise: hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners.
    Summers V; Makashay MJ; Theodoroff SM; Leek MR
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Apr; 24(4):274-92. PubMed ID: 23636209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Undirected head movements of listeners with asymmetrical hearing impairment during a speech-in-noise task.
    Brimijoin WO; McShefferty D; Akeroyd MA
    Hear Res; 2012 Jan; 283(1-2):162-8. PubMed ID: 22079774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Head shadow enhancement with low-frequency beamforming improves sound localization and speech perception for simulated bimodal listeners.
    Dieudonné B; Francart T
    Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 363():78-84. PubMed ID: 29555110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners.
    Goldsworthy RL; Delhorne LA; Braida LD; Reed CM
    Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):27-44. PubMed ID: 23429419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Extension and evaluation of a near-end listening enhancement algorithm for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Rennies J; Drefs J; Hülsmeier D; Schepker H; Doclo S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2526. PubMed ID: 28464693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Understanding excessive SNR loss in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Grant KW; Walden TC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Apr; 24(4):258-73; quiz 337-8. PubMed ID: 23636208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.