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 *

242 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26795710)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. STARR: a speech test for evaluation of the effectiveness of auditory prostheses under realistic conditions.
    Boyle PJ; Nunn TB; O'Connor AF; Moore BC
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(2):203-12. PubMed ID: 23135616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
    Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Development and validation of a smartphone-based digits-in-noise hearing test in South African English.
    Potgieter JM; Swanepoel de W; Myburgh HC; Hopper TC; Smits C
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Jul; 55(7):405-11. PubMed ID: 27121117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
    Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The potential of onset enhancement for increased speech intelligibility in auditory prostheses.
    Koning R; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2569-81. PubMed ID: 23039450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. A Danish open-set speech corpus for competing-speech studies.
    Nielsen JB; Dau T; Neher T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):407-20. PubMed ID: 24437781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.