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.
26. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners. Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Importance of temporal-envelope cues in consonant recognition. van der Horst R; Leeuw AR; Dreschler WA J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Mar; 105(3):1801-9. PubMed ID: 10089603 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Consonant identification in noise using Hilbert-transform temporal fine-structure speech and recovered-envelope speech for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Léger AC; Reed CM; Desloge JG; Swaminathan J; Braida LD J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jul; 138(1):389-403. PubMed ID: 26233038 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Acoustic and electrical pattern analysis of consonant perceptual cues used by cochlear implant users. Teoh SW; Neuburger HS; Svirsky MA Audiol Neurootol; 2003; 8(5):269-85. PubMed ID: 12904682 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Auditory versus phonetic accounts of observed confusions between consonant phonemes. Soli SD; Arabie P J Acoust Soc Am; 1979 Jul; 66(1):46-59. PubMed ID: 489832 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Enhancing speech envelope by integrating hair-cell adaptation into cochlear implant processing. Azadpour M; Smith RL Hear Res; 2016 Dec; 342():48-57. PubMed ID: 27697486 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise. Van Zyl M; Hanekom JJ J Commun Disord; 2013; 46(5-6):449-64. PubMed ID: 24157128 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. Newman RS; Clouse SA; Burnham JL J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Mar; 109(3):1181-96. PubMed ID: 11303932 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Masked Speech Perception Thresholds in Infants, Children, and Adults. Leibold LJ; Yarnell Bonino A; Buss E Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):345-53. PubMed ID: 26783855 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Consonant recognition for spectrally degraded speech as a function of consonant-vowel intensity ratio. Balakrishnan U; Freyman RL; Chiang YC; Nerbonne GP; Shea KJ J Acoust Soc Am; 1996 Jun; 99(6):3758-69. PubMed ID: 8655807 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. On cross-language consonant identification in second language noise. Marchegiani L; Fafoutis X J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Oct; 138(4):2206-9. PubMed ID: 26520302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss. Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Microscopic prediction of speech recognition for listeners with normal hearing in noise using an auditory model. Jürgens T; Brand T J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):2635-48. PubMed ID: 19894841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]