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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25920855)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Phoneme recognition in vocoded maskers by normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners.
    Phatak SA; Grant KW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):859-66. PubMed ID: 25096119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Companding to improve cochlear-implant speech recognition in speech-shaped noise.
    Bhattacharya A; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1079-89. PubMed ID: 17672655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Temporal resolution in regions of normal hearing and speech perception in noise for adults with sloping high-frequency hearing loss.
    Feng Y; Yin S; Kiefte M; Wang J
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):115-25. PubMed ID: 19816181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The benefit obtained from visually displayed text from an automatic speech recognizer during listening to speech presented in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Kessens JM; Vlaming MS; Houtgast T
    Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):838-52. PubMed ID: 18633325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
    Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise.
    Christiansen C; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1655-66. PubMed ID: 22978894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Bernstein JG; Grant KW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3358-72. PubMed ID: 19425676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Revisiting perceptual compensation for effects of reverberation in speech identification.
    Nielsen JB; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Nov; 128(5):3088-94. PubMed ID: 21110604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The effects of binaural spectral resolution mismatch on Mandarin speech perception in simulated electric hearing.
    Chen F; Wong LL; Tahmina Q; Azimi B; Hu Y
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):EL142-8. PubMed ID: 22894313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test.
    Cameron S; Dillon H; Newall P
    Ear Hear; 2006 Feb; 27(1):30-42. PubMed ID: 16446563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing.
    Jørgensen S; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1475-87. PubMed ID: 21895088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Masking release and modulation interference in cochlear implant and simulation listeners.
    Jin SH; Nie Y; Nelson P
    Am J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 22(1):135-46. PubMed ID: 23800809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Auditory mismatch negativity: detecting spectral contrasts in a modulated noise.
    Stoody TM; Saoji AA; Atcherson SR
    Percept Mot Skills; 2011 Aug; 113(1):268-76. PubMed ID: 21987925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Perceptual relevance of the temporal envelope to the speech signal in the 4-7 kHz band.
    Kim KT; Choi JY; Kang HG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Sep; 122(3):EL88. PubMed ID: 17927313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise.
    Nie K; Stickney G; Zeng FG
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2005 Jan; 52(1):64-73. PubMed ID: 15651565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Contribution of high frequencies to speech recognition in quiet and noise in listeners with varying degrees of high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.
    Amos NE; Humes LE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Aug; 50(4):819-34. PubMed ID: 17675588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Human phoneme recognition depending on speech-intrinsic variability.
    Meyer BT; Jürgens T; Wesker T; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Nov; 128(5):3126-41. PubMed ID: 21110608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.