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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28964090)

  • 41. Spectral and temporal resolutions of information-bearing acoustic changes for understanding vocoded sentences.
    Stilp CE; Goupell MJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):844-55. PubMed ID: 25698018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers.
    Stickney GS; Zeng FG; Litovsky R; Assmann P
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Aug; 116(2):1081-91. PubMed ID: 15376674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech.
    Souza P; Rosen S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Aug; 126(2):792-805. PubMed ID: 19640044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Influences of noise-interruption and information-bearing acoustic changes on understanding simulated electric-acoustic speech.
    Stilp C; Donaldson G; Oh S; Kong YY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Nov; 140(5):3971. PubMed ID: 27908030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Comparative intelligibility investigation of single-channel noise-reduction algorithms for Chinese, Japanese, and English.
    Li J; Yang L; Zhang J; Yan Y; Hu Y; Akagi M; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 May; 129(5):3291-301. PubMed ID: 21568430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. 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]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. An Evaluation of Output Signal to Noise Ratio as a Predictor of Cochlear Implant Speech Intelligibility.
    Watkins GD; Swanson BA; Suaning GJ
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(5):958-968. PubMed ID: 29474218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Frontotemporal activation differs between perception of simulated cochlear implant speech and speech in background noise: An image-based fNIRS study.
    Defenderfer J; Forbes S; Wijeakumar S; Hedrick M; Plyler P; Buss AT
    Neuroimage; 2021 Oct; 240():118385. PubMed ID: 34256138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Understanding frequency-compressed Mandarin sentences: Role of vowels.
    Chen F; Chan FW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Mar; 139(3):1204-13. PubMed ID: 27036256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Recognition of vocoded words and sentences in quiet and multi-talker babble with children and adults.
    Goupell MJ; Draves GT; Litovsky RY
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(12):e0244632. PubMed ID: 33373427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Acoustic richness modulates the neural networks supporting intelligible speech processing.
    Lee YS; Min NE; Wingfield A; Grossman M; Peelle JE
    Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():108-117. PubMed ID: 26723103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. Human Frequency Following Responses to Vocoded Speech.
    Ananthakrishnan S; Luo X; Krishnan A
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):e256-e267. PubMed ID: 28362674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Modulation masking and glimpsing of natural and vocoded speech during single-talker modulated noise: Effect of the modulation spectrum.
    Fogerty D; Xu J; Gibbs BE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Sep; 140(3):1800. PubMed ID: 27914381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Intelligibility of time-compressed speech: the effect of uniform versus non-uniform time-compression algorithms.
    Schlueter A; Lemke U; Kollmeier B; Holube I
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1541-55. PubMed ID: 24606289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Understanding compression: modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids.
    Kates JM
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):395-409. PubMed ID: 20225931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.