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 *

355 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27250164)

  • 1. A simulation framework for auditory discrimination experiments: Revealing the importance of across-frequency processing in speech perception.
    Schädler MR; Warzybok A; Ewert SD; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 May; 139(5):2708. PubMed ID: 27250164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Matrix sentence intelligibility prediction using an automatic speech recognition system.
    Schädler MR; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():100-7. PubMed ID: 26383042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests.
    Francart T; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 21091261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. The role of short-time intensity and envelope power for speech intelligibility and psychoacoustic masking.
    Biberger T; Ewert SD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Aug; 142(2):1098. PubMed ID: 28863616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A psychoacoustic model for the noise masking of plosive bursts.
    Hant JJ; Strope BP; Alwan AA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 May; 101(5 Pt 1):2789-802. PubMed ID: 9165733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise.
    Christiansen C; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1655-66. PubMed ID: 22978894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing.
    Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2084-94. PubMed ID: 12703719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Separable spectro-temporal Gabor filter bank features: Reducing the complexity of robust features for automatic speech recognition.
    Schädler MR; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Apr; 137(4):2047-59. PubMed ID: 25920855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The effect of nearby maskers on speech intelligibility in reverberant, multi-talker environments.
    Westermann A; Buchholz JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):2214. PubMed ID: 28372143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Psychometric functions for sentence recognition in sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noises.
    Shen Y; Manzano NK; Richards VM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):3613-24. PubMed ID: 26723318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Binaural speech intelligibility in rooms with variations in spatial location of sources and modulation depth of noise interferers.
    Collin B; Lavandier M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Aug; 134(2):1146-59. PubMed ID: 23927114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers.
    Qin MK; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Jul; 114(1):446-54. PubMed ID: 12880055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Modeling the effects of a single reflection on binaural speech intelligibility.
    Rennies J; Warzybok A; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1556-67. PubMed ID: 24606290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Computational speech segregation based on an auditory-inspired modulation analysis.
    May T; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Dec; 136(6):3350. PubMed ID: 25480079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Revision and validation of a binaural model for speech intelligibility in noise.
    Jelfs S; Culling JF; Lavandier M
    Hear Res; 2011 May; 275(1-2):96-104. PubMed ID: 21156201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.