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 *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27749521)

  • 1. Characterizing Speech Intelligibility in Noise After Wide Dynamic Range Compression.
    Rhebergen KS; Maalderink TH; Dreschler WA
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(2):194-204. PubMed ID: 27749521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Noise Reduction Algorithm May Not Compensate for the Degradation in Output Signal-to-Noise Ratio Caused by Wide Dynamic Range Compression.
    Yun D; Lentz J; Shen Y
    Am J Audiol; 2024 Sep; 33(3):793-809. PubMed ID: 38875482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The Effects of Signal to Noise Ratio, T60 , Wide-Dynamic Range Compression Speed, and Digital Noise Reduction in a Virtual Restaurant Setting.
    Ellis GM; Crukley J; Souza PE
    Ear Hear; 2024 May-Jun 01; 45(3):760-774. PubMed ID: 38254265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pediatric normative data for a novel and fast speech perception test in noise.
    Gambacorta V; Stivalini D; Faralli M; Lapenna R; Della Volpe A; Malerba P; Di Nardo W; Di Cesare T; Orzan E; Ricci G
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2024 May; 180():111928. PubMed ID: 38593717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Application of Noise Reduction Algorithm ClearVoice in Cochlear Implant Processing: Effects on Noise Tolerance and Speech Intelligibility in Noise in Relation to Spectral Resolution.
    Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(3):357-67. PubMed ID: 25479412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Relation Between Listening Effort and Speech Intelligibility in Noise.
    Krueger M; Schulte M; Zokoll MA; Wagener KC; Meis M; Brand T; Holube I
    Am J Audiol; 2017 Oct; 26(3S):378-392. PubMed ID: 29049622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
    Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies II: Speech Intelligibility of Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.
    Baumgärtel RM; Hu H; Krawczyk-Becker M; Marquardt D; Herzke T; Coleman G; Adiloğlu K; Bomke K; Plotz K; Gerkmann T; Doclo S; Kollmeier B; Hohmann V; Dietz M
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm in normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 310():36-47. PubMed ID: 24495441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of Hearing Loss and Fast-Acting Compression on Amplitude Modulation Perception and Speech Intelligibility.
    Wiinberg A; Jepsen ML; Epp B; Dau T
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):45-54. PubMed ID: 29668566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived speech quality.
    Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):420-36. PubMed ID: 20440116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of Slow- and Fast-Acting Compression on Hearing-Impaired Listeners' Consonant-Vowel Identification in Interrupted Noise.
    Kowalewski B; Zaar J; Fereczkowski M; MacDonald EN; Strelcyk O; May T; Dau T
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518800870. PubMed ID: 30311552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of WDRC release time and number of channels on output SNR and speech recognition.
    Alexander JM; Masterson K
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(2):e35-49. PubMed ID: 25470368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of Adaptive Compression and Fast-Acting WDRC Strategies on Sentence Recognition in Noise in Mandarin-Speaking Pediatric Hearing Aid Users.
    Liu H; Liu Y; Li Y; Jin X; Li J; Zhou Y; Ge W; Ni X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Apr; 29(4):273-278. PubMed ID: 29664721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of Directionality, Compression, and Working Memory on Speech Recognition.
    Rallapalli V; Ellis G; Souza P
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(3):492-505. PubMed ID: 33136708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Völker C; Warzybok A; Ernst SM
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.