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 *

198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27080666)

  • 1. Speech Intelligibility for Target and Masker with Different Spectra.
    Leclère T; Théry D; Lavandier M; Culling JF
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2016; 894():257-266. PubMed ID: 27080666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The effect of spatial separation in distance on the intelligibility of speech in rooms.
    Westermann A; Buchholz JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):757-67. PubMed ID: 25698010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Modeling Binaural Unmasking of Speech Using a Blind Binaural Processing Stage.
    Hauth CF; Berning SC; Kollmeier B; Brand T
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520975630. PubMed ID: 33305690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Effect of cochlear implant n-of-m strategy on signal-to-noise ratio below which noise hinders speech recognition.
    Stam L; Goverts ST; Smits C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 May; 145(5):EL417. PubMed ID: 31153330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Speech intelligibility in virtual restaurants.
    Culling JF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Oct; 140(4):2418. PubMed ID: 27794329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Intelligibility for Binaural Speech with Discarded Low-SNR Speech Components.
    Schoenmaker E; van de Par S
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2016; 894():73-81. PubMed ID: 27080648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The development and evaluation of the Finnish Matrix Sentence Test for speech intelligibility assessment.
    Dietz A; Buschermöhle M; Aarnisalo AA; Vanhanen A; Hyyrynen T; Aaltonen O; Löppönen H; Zokoll MA; Kollmeier B
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2014 Jul; 134(7):728-37. PubMed ID: 24807850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of ideal mask-based speech enhancement algorithms for speech mixed with white noise at low mixture signal-to-noise ratios.
    Graetzer S; Hopkins C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Dec; 152(6):3458. PubMed ID: 36586840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Delta-band neural envelope tracking predicts speech intelligibility in noise in preschoolers.
    Van Hirtum T; Somers B; Verschueren E; Dieudonné B; Francart T
    Hear Res; 2023 Jul; 434():108785. PubMed ID: 37172414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Intelligibility prediction for speech mixed with white Gaussian noise at low signal-to-noise ratios.
    Graetzer S; Hopkins C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Feb; 149(2):1346. PubMed ID: 33639794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.