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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26365793)

  • 21. A comparison between the Dutch and American-English digits-in-noise (DIN) tests in normal-hearing listeners.
    Smits C; Watson CS; Kidd GR; Moore DR; Goverts ST
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(6):358-65. PubMed ID: 26940045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Evaluation of an internet-based speech-in-noise screening test for school-age children.
    Sheikh Rashid M; Dreschler WA; de Laat JAPM
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Dec; 56(12):967-975. PubMed ID: 28936876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Sentence perception in listening conditions having similar speech intelligibility indices.
    Gustafson SJ; Pittman AL
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):34-40. PubMed ID: 21047291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Rönnberg J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep; 134(3):2225-34. PubMed ID: 23967952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. English sentence recognition in speech-shaped noise and multi-talker babble for English-, Chinese-, and Korean-native listeners.
    Jin SH; Liu C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Nov; 132(5):EL391-7. PubMed ID: 23145700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, part 1: test evaluation for noise-induced hearing loss identification.
    Leensen MC; de Laat JA; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):823-34. PubMed ID: 21988504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The Sharvard Corpus: a phonemically-balanced Spanish sentence resource for audiology.
    Aubanel V; Lecumberri ML; Cooke M
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Sep; 53(9):633-8. PubMed ID: 24863133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: effect of masker type.
    Deroche ML; Culling JF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):EL465-70. PubMed ID: 24181992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise.
    Ozimek E; Warzybok A; Kutzner D
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):444-54. PubMed ID: 20482292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Speech understanding in noise with an eyeglass hearing aid: asymmetric fitting and the head shadow benefit of anterior microphones.
    Mens LH
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 21047292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
    Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. New measures of masked text recognition in relation to speech-in-noise perception and their associations with age and cognitive abilities.
    Besser J; Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Rönnberg J; Festen JM
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2012 Feb; 55(1):194-209. PubMed ID: 22199191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Development of the Listening Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (LSEQ).
    Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller KM; Watts KL; La More C
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jun; 50(6):417-25. PubMed ID: 21470067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The effect of non-native and non-regional speech testing on a multi-lingual population.
    Quar TK; Soli SD; Chan YF; Ishak WS; Abdul Wahat NH
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Feb; 56(2):92-98. PubMed ID: 27686009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Second-language experience and speech-in-noise recognition: effects of talker-listener accent similarity.
    Pinet M; Iverson P; Huckvale M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1653-62. PubMed ID: 21895102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, part 2: improving test sensitivity for noise-induced hearing loss.
    Leensen MC; de Laat JA; Snik AF; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):835-48. PubMed ID: 21970351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: steady-state noise.
    Smits C; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2987-98. PubMed ID: 22087927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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