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 *

504 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26383042)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing.
    Bernstein JG; Summers V; Grassi E; Grant KW
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Apr; 24(4):307-28. PubMed ID: 23636211
    [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 Danish hearing in noise test.
    Nielsen JB; Dau T
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Mar; 50(3):202-8. PubMed ID: 21319937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Prediction of the intelligibility for speech in real-life background noises for subjects with normal hearing.
    Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
    Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):169-75. PubMed ID: 18490862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: the German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype.
    Zokoll MA; Wagener KC; Brand T; Buschermöhle M; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):697-707. PubMed ID: 22762202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners.
    Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Apr; 117(4 Pt 1):2181-92. PubMed ID: 15898659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Binaural speech intelligibility in rooms with variations in spatial location of sources and modulation depth of noise interferers.
    Collin B; Lavandier M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Aug; 134(2):1146-59. PubMed ID: 23927114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Relationship between speech recognition in noise and sparseness.
    Li G; Lutman ME; Wang S; Bleeck S
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Feb; 51(2):75-82. PubMed ID: 22107445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Revision, extension, and evaluation of a binaural speech intelligibility model.
    Beutelmann R; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Apr; 127(4):2479-97. PubMed ID: 20370031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Microscopic prediction of speech intelligibility in spatially distributed speech-shaped noise for normal-hearing listeners.
    Geravanchizadeh M; Fallah A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):4004-15. PubMed ID: 26723354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests.
    Francart T; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 21091261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Optimization of the Dutch matrix test by random selection of sentences from a preselected subset.
    Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Trends Hear; 2015 May; 19():. PubMed ID: 25964195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The influence of age, hearing, and working memory on the speech comprehension benefit derived from an automatic speech recognition system.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Kessens JM; Vlaming MS; Houtgast T
    Ear Hear; 2009 Apr; 30(2):262-72. PubMed ID: 19194286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Adaptation of the STARR test for adult Italian population: A speech test for a realistic estimate in real-life listening conditions.
    Dincer D'Alessandro H; Ballantyne D; De Seta E; Musacchio A; Mancini P
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(4):262-7. PubMed ID: 26795710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 26.