510 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26383042)
1. Matrix sentence intelligibility prediction using an automatic speech recognition system.
Schädler MR; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():100-7. PubMed ID: 26383042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests.
Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B; Brand T; Jürgens T
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():62-70. PubMed ID: 26097982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation?
Hochmuth S; Jürgens T; Brand T; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():23-34. PubMed ID: 26486466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test.
Zokoll MA; Fidan D; Türkyılmaz D; Hochmuth S; Ergenç İ; Sennaroğlu G; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():51-61. PubMed ID: 26443486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test.
Warzybok A; Zokoll M; Wardenga N; Ozimek E; Boboshko M; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():35-43. PubMed ID: 25843088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An Italian matrix sentence test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise.
Puglisi GE; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Visentin C; Astolfi A; Prodi N; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():44-50. PubMed ID: 26371592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How much does language proficiency by non-native listeners influence speech audiometric tests in noise?
Warzybok A; Brand T; Wagener KC; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():88-99. PubMed ID: 26344170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise.
Hochmuth S; Brand T; Zokoll MA; Castro FZ; Wardenga N; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2012 Jul; 51(7):536-44. PubMed ID: 22537033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Overcoming language barriers: Matrix sentence tests with closed speech corpora.
Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():1-2. PubMed ID: 26365793
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review.
Kollmeier B; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Zokoll MA; Uslar V; Brand T; Wagener KC
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():3-16. PubMed ID: 26383182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise.
Smits C; Theo Goverts S; Festen JM
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1693-706. PubMed ID: 23464039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A simulation framework for auditory discrimination experiments: Revealing the importance of across-frequency processing in speech perception.
Schädler MR; Warzybok A; Ewert SD; Kollmeier B
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 May; 139(5):2708. PubMed ID: 27250164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Characteristics and international comparability of the Finnish matrix sentence test in cochlear implant recipients.
Dietz A; Buschermöhle M; Sivonen V; Willberg T; Aarnisalo AA; Lenarz T; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():80-7. PubMed ID: 26364512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Construction and evaluation of the Mandarin Chinese matrix (CMNmatrix) sentence test for the assessment of speech recognition in noise.
Hu H; Xi X; Wong LLN; Hochmuth S; Warzybok A; Kollmeier B
Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):838-850. PubMed ID: 30178681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Development and evaluation of a mixed gender, multi-talker matrix sentence test in Australian English.
Kelly H; Lin G; Sankaran N; Xia J; Kalluri S; Carlile S
Int J Audiol; 2017 Feb; 56(2):85-91. PubMed ID: 27758153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The combined effects of reverberation and nonstationary noise on sentence intelligibility.
George EL; Festen JM; Houtgast T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Aug; 124(2):1269-77. PubMed ID: 18681613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
