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 *

196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25879238)

  • 1. The homogeneity with respect to intelligibility of recorded word-recognition materials.
    Wilson RH; McArdle R
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Apr; 26(4):331-45. PubMed ID: 25879238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of recognition performances in speech-spectrum noise by listeners with normal hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU-6, W-1 spondaic words, and monosyllabic digits spoken by the same speaker.
    Wilson RH; McArdle R; Roberts H
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008 Jun; 19(6):496-506. PubMed ID: 19253782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Comparison of Word-Recognition Performances on the Auditec and VA Recorded Versions of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by Young Listeners with Normal Hearing and by Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using a Randomized Presentation-Level Paradigm.
    Wilson RH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 May; 30(5):370-395. PubMed ID: 30969910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of the Carrier Phrase on Word Recognition Performances by Younger and Older Listeners Using Two Stimulus Paradigms.
    Wilson RH; Sanchez VA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Jun; 31(6):412-441. PubMed ID: 31968207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Revised Speech Perception in Noise Test (R-SPIN) in a multiple signal-to-noise ratio paradigm.
    Wilson RH; McArdle R; Watts KL; Smith SL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 Sep; 23(8):590-605. PubMed ID: 22967734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Interrupted Monosyllabic Words: The Effects of Ten Interruption Locations on Recognition Performance by Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
    Wilson RH; Sharrett KC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Jan; 28(1):68-79. PubMed ID: 28054913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Recognition performance on words interrupted (10 ips, 50% duty cycle) with two interruption patterns referenced to word onset: Young listeners with normal hearing for pure tones and older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Wilson RH; Irish SE
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54(12):933-41. PubMed ID: 26252182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss.
    Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of two word-recognition tasks in multitalker babble: Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) and Words-in-Noise Test (WIN).
    Wilson RH; Cates WB
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008; 19(7):548-56. PubMed ID: 19248731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Words-in-Noise Test (WIN), list 3: a practice list.
    Wilson RH; Watts KL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 Feb; 23(2):92-6. PubMed ID: 22353677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Amplitude (vu and rms) and Temporal (msec) Measures of Two Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 Recordings.
    Wilson RH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Apr; 26(4):346-54. PubMed ID: 25879239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Carhart Memorial Lecture, American Auditory Society, Salt Lake City, Utah 1996. Phoneme and word recognition for words in isolation and in sentences.
    Olsen WO; Van Tasell DJ; Speaks CE
    Ear Hear; 1997 Jun; 18(3):175-88. PubMed ID: 9201453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Recognition Performance of Interrupted Monosyllabic Words: The Effects of Ten Interruption Locations.
    Wilson RH; Hamm HM
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015; 26(7):670-7. PubMed ID: 26218055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effects of energetic and informational masking on The Words-in-Noise Test (WIN).
    Wilson RH; Trivette CP; Williams DA; Watts KL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012; 23(7):522-33. PubMed ID: 22992259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. List equivalency of the AzBio sentence test in noise for listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity or cochlear implants.
    Schafer EC; Pogue J; Milrany T
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012; 23(7):501-9. PubMed ID: 22992257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical experience with the words-in-noise test on 3430 veterans: comparisons with pure-tone thresholds and word recognition in quiet.
    Wilson RH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011; 22(7):405-23. PubMed ID: 21993048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. List Equivalency of PRESTO for the Evaluation of Speech Recognition.
    Faulkner KF; Tamati TN; Gilbert JL; Pisoni DB
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Jun; 26(6):582-94. PubMed ID: 26134725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Automated Forced-Choice Tests of Speech Recognition.
    Margolis RH; Wilson RH; Saly GL; Gregoire HM; Madsen BM
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2021 Oct; 32(9):606-615. PubMed ID: 35176804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists.
    Spahr AJ; Dorman MF; Litvak LM; Van Wie S; Gifford RH; Loizou PC; Loiselle LM; Oakes T; Cook S
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(1):112-7. PubMed ID: 21829134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.