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 *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26520329)

  • 1. Comparing the information conveyed by envelope modulation for speech intelligibility, speech quality, and music quality.
    Kates JM; Arehart KH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Oct; 138(4):2470-82. PubMed ID: 26520329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using envelope modulation to explain speech intelligibility in the presence of a single reflection.
    Muralimanohar RK; Kates JM; Arehart KH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):EL482. PubMed ID: 28599537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Sentence intelligibility during segmental interruption and masking by speech-modulated noise: Effects of age and hearing loss.
    Fogerty D; Ahlstrom JB; Bologna WJ; Dubno JR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jun; 137(6):3487-501. PubMed ID: 26093436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality.
    van Buuren RA; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 May; 105(5):2903-13. PubMed ID: 10335639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The role of recovered envelope cues in the identification of temporal-fine-structure speech for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Léger AC; Desloge JG; Braida LD; Swaminathan J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jan; 137(1):505-8. PubMed ID: 25618081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The influence of spectral characteristics of early reflections on speech intelligibility.
    Arweiler I; Buchholz JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Aug; 130(2):996-1005. PubMed ID: 21877812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of degradation of intensity, time, or frequency content on speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    van Schijndel NH; Houtgast T; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Jul; 110(1):529-42. PubMed ID: 11508977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparing auditory filter bandwidths, spectral ripple modulation detection, spectral ripple discrimination, and speech recognition: Normal and impaired hearing.
    Davies-Venn E; Nelson P; Souza P
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jul; 138(1):492-503. PubMed ID: 26233047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Predicted effects of sensorineural hearing loss on across-fiber envelope coding in the auditory nerve.
    Swaminathan J; Heinz MG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):4001-13. PubMed ID: 21682421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of noise envelope modulation on quality judgments of noisy speech.
    Jin IK; Kates JM; Arehart KH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):EL277-83. PubMed ID: 23039565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression.
    Arehart K; Souza P; Kates J; Lunner T; Pedersen MS
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(5):505-16. PubMed ID: 25985016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Understanding compression: modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids.
    Kates JM
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):395-409. PubMed ID: 20225931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of age and hearing loss on the intelligibility of interrupted speech.
    Shafiro V; Sheft S; Risley R; Gygi B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):745-56. PubMed ID: 25698009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peaks in the frequency response of hearing aids: evaluation of the effects on speech intelligibility and sound quality.
    van Buuren RA; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Speech Hear Res; 1996 Apr; 39(2):239-50. PubMed ID: 8729914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effects of noise vocoding on speech quality perception.
    Anderson MC; Arehart KH; Kates JM
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():75-83. PubMed ID: 24333929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluating the role of spectral and envelope characteristics in the intelligibility advantage of clear speech.
    Krause JC; Braida LD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3346-57. PubMed ID: 19425675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.
    Baer T; Moore BC; Gatehouse S
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):49-72. PubMed ID: 8263829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.