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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26557334)

  • 1. Comparison of speech intelligibility measures for an electronic amplifying earmuff and an identical passive attenuation device.
    Byrne DC; Palmer CV
    Audiol Res; 2012 Jan; 2(1):e5. PubMed ID: 26557334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Amplified earmuffs: impact on speech intelligibility in industrial noise for listeners with hearing loss.
    Dolan TG; O'Loughlin D
    Am J Audiol; 2005 Jun; 14(1):80-5. PubMed ID: 16180971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of wearing an anti-flash hood on the noise attenuation of earmuffs.
    Paddan GS; Lower MC
    Ind Health; 2021 Sep; 59(4):204-219. PubMed ID: 33692247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of hearing protection devices on speech intelligibility of Persian employees.
    Karami M; Aliabadi M; Golmohammadi R; Hamidi Nahrani M
    BMC Res Notes; 2020 Nov; 13(1):529. PubMed ID: 33176877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Acoustic Performance of 3D Printed Nanocomposite Earmuff.
    Ahmadi S; Nassiri P; Ghasemi I; Monazzam Ep MR
    Glob J Health Sci; 2015 May; 8(1):180-8. PubMed ID: 26234977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Earmuff performance in the presence of high-level impulse from a recoilless weapon firing in a confined space.
    Li Z; Tao G; Wen P
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Jul; 156(1):359-368. PubMed ID: 38994905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Modulation-based digital noise reduction for application to hearing protectors to reduce noise and maintain intelligibility.
    Chung K; Tufts J; Nelson L
    Hum Factors; 2009 Feb; 51(1):78-89. PubMed ID: 19634311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. To measure the impact of hearing protectors on the perception of speech in noise.
    Hiselius P; Edvall N; Reimers D
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Feb; 54 Suppl 1():S3-8. PubMed ID: 25549165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Intelligibility of modified speech for young listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Uchanski RM; Geers AE; Protopapas A
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2002 Oct; 45(5):1027-38. PubMed ID: 12381058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Speech intelligibility and passive, level-dependent earplugs.
    Norin JA; Emanuel DC; Letowski TR
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):642-9. PubMed ID: 21407078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of audiovisual and binaural listening on the acceptable noise level (ANL): establishing an ANL conceptual model.
    Wu YH; Stangl E; Pang C; Zhang X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):141-53. PubMed ID: 24828215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise.
    Pals C; Sarampalis A; van Dijk M; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 29757801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The challenge of localizing vehicle backup alarms: effects of passive and electronic hearing protectors, ambient noise level, and backup alarm spectral content.
    Alali KA; Casali JG
    Noise Health; 2011; 13(51):99-112. PubMed ID: 21368435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Hearing protection against high-level shooting impulses in relation to hearing damage risk criteria.
    Pekkarinen JO; Starck JP; Ylikoski JS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Jan; 91(1):196-202. PubMed ID: 1737871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Application of the articulation index to the speech recognition of normal and impaired listeners wearing hearing protection.
    Wilde G; Humes LE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Mar; 87(3):1192-9. PubMed ID: 2324388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Speech Intelligibility as a Cue for Acceptable Noise Levels.
    Recker KL; Micheyl C
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(4):465-474. PubMed ID: 28169839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):498-510. PubMed ID: 21233711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Industrial impulse noise, crest factor and the effect of earmuffs.
    Pekkarinen J
    Am Ind Hyg Assoc J; 1987 Oct; 48(10):861-6. PubMed ID: 3687731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
    van den Tillaart-Haverkate M; de Ronde-Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517716844. PubMed ID: 28656807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.