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)

  • 21. Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing.
    Oxenham AJ; Kreft HA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Auditory-filter characteristics for listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment.
    Desloge JG; Reed CM; Braida LD; Perez ZD; Delhorne LA
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Mar; 16(1):19-39. PubMed ID: 22593204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. The relative importance of consonant and vowel segments to the recognition of words and sentences: effects of age and hearing loss.
    Fogerty D; Kewley-Port D; Humes LE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1667-78. PubMed ID: 22978895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. An algorithm to improve speech recognition in noise for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Healy EW; Yoho SE; Wang Y; Wang D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3029-38. PubMed ID: 24116438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Pupillometry Reveals That Context Benefit in Speech Perception Can Be Disrupted by Later-Occurring Sounds, Especially in Listeners With Cochlear Implants.
    Winn MB; Moore AN
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518808962. PubMed ID: 30375282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?
    Huber R; Bisitz T; Gerkmann T; Kiessling J; Meister H; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S55-S61. PubMed ID: 28112001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Auditory training of speech recognition with interrupted and continuous noise maskers by children with hearing impairment.
    Sullivan JR; Thibodeau LM; Assmann PF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jan; 133(1):495-501. PubMed ID: 23297921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Pitch strength of noise-vocoded harmonic tone complexes in normal-hearing listeners.
    Shofner WP; Campbell J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):EL398-404. PubMed ID: 23145701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Syllable-constituent perception by hearing-aid users: Common factors in quiet and noise.
    Miller JD; Watson CS; Leek MR; Dubno JR; Wark DJ; Souza PE; Gordon-Salant S; Ahlstrom JB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2933. PubMed ID: 28464618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Native and Non-native Speech Perception by Hearing-Impaired Listeners in Noise- and Speech Maskers.
    Kilman L; Zekveld A; Hällgren M; Rönnberg J
    Trends Hear; 2015 Apr; 19():. PubMed ID: 25910504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of hearing-aid dynamic range compression on spatial perception in a reverberant environment.
    Hassager HG; Wiinberg A; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2556. PubMed ID: 28464692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. The role of segmentation difficulties in speech-in-speech understanding in older and hearing-impaired adults.
    Woodfield A; Akeroyd MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jul; 128(1):EL26-31. PubMed ID: 20649185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Spatial release from masking in normal-hearing children and children who use hearing aids.
    Ching TY; van Wanrooy E; Dillon H; Carter L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jan; 129(1):368-75. PubMed ID: 21303017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Large-scale training to increase speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners in novel noises.
    Chen J; Wang Y; Yoho SE; Wang D; Healy EW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 May; 139(5):2604. PubMed ID: 27250154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.