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 *

202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29373159)

  • 1. Single-ended prediction of listening effort using deep neural networks.
    Huber R; Krüger M; Meyer BT
    Hear Res; 2018 Mar; 359():40-49. PubMed ID: 29373159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation.
    Ohlenforst B; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Wendt D; Naylor G; Wang Y; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():68-79. PubMed ID: 28622894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Masked speech perception across the adult lifespan: Impact of age and hearing impairment.
    Goossens T; Vercammen C; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():109-124. PubMed ID: 27845259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The Just-Meaningful Difference in Speech-to-Noise Ratio.
    McShefferty D; Whitmer WM; Akeroyd MA
    Trends Hear; 2016 Feb; 20():. PubMed ID: 26834121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Peripheral hearing loss reduces the ability of children to direct selective attention during multi-talker listening.
    Holmes E; Kitterick PT; Summerfield AQ
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():160-172. PubMed ID: 28505526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
    van den Tillaart-Haverkate M; de Ronde-Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517716844. PubMed ID: 28656807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech quality evaluation of a sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm with normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():175-85. PubMed ID: 26232529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Speech reception with different bilateral directional processing schemes: Influence of binaural hearing, audiometric asymmetry, and acoustic scenario.
    Neher T; Wagener KC; Latzel M
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():36-48. PubMed ID: 28783570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effects of noise vocoding on speech quality perception.
    Anderson MC; Arehart KH; Kates JM
    Hear Res; 2014 Mar; 309():75-83. PubMed ID: 24333929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.
    Rana B; Buchholz JM; Morgan C; Sharma M; Weller T; Konganda SA; Shirai K; Kawano A
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517722106. PubMed ID: 28752811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Large-scale training to increase speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners in novel noises.
    Chen J; Wang Y; Yoho SE; Wang D; Healy EW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 May; 139(5):2604. PubMed ID: 27250154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An examination of speech reception thresholds measured in a simulated reverberant cafeteria environment.
    Best V; Keidser G; Buchholz JM; Freeston K
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54(10):682-90. PubMed ID: 25853616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
    Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of attention on the speech reception threshold and pupil response of people with impaired and normal hearing.
    Koelewijn T; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2017 Oct; 354():56-63. PubMed ID: 28869841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Acceptable noise level (ANL) with Danish and non-semantic speech materials in adult hearing-aid users.
    Olsen SØ; Lantz J; Nielsen LH; Brännström KJ
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):678-88. PubMed ID: 22731922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of Energy Equalization on the Intelligibility of Speech in Fluctuating Background Interference for Listeners With Hearing Impairment.
    D'Aquila LA; Desloge JG; Reed CM; Braida LD
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517710354. PubMed ID: 28602128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Undirected head movements of listeners with asymmetrical hearing impairment during a speech-in-noise task.
    Brimijoin WO; McShefferty D; Akeroyd MA
    Hear Res; 2012 Jan; 283(1-2):162-8. PubMed ID: 22079774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Phoneme recognition in vocoded maskers by normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners.
    Phatak SA; Grant KW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):859-66. PubMed ID: 25096119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.