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 *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29373159)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Characterizing the Speech Reception Threshold in hearing-impaired listeners in relation to masker type and masker level.
    Rhebergen KS; Pool RE; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 24606285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Development and evaluation of the British English coordinate response measure speech-in-noise test as an occupational hearing assessment tool.
    Semeraro HD; Rowan D; van Besouw RM; Allsopp AA
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Oct; 56(10):749-758. PubMed ID: 28537138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. On a reference-free speech quality estimator for hearing aids.
    Suelzle D; Parsa V; Falk TH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):EL412-8. PubMed ID: 23656102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Self-Reported Usage, Functional Benefit, and Audiologic Characteristics of Cochlear Implant Patients Who Use a Contralateral Hearing Aid.
    Neuman AC; Waltzman SB; Shapiro WH; Neukam JD; Zeman AM; Svirsky MA
    Trends Hear; 2017 Jan; 21():2331216517699530. PubMed ID: 28351216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Refining a model of hearing impairment using speech psychophysics.
    Jepsen ML; Dau T; Ghitza O
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Apr; 135(4):EL179-85. PubMed ID: 25236151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners' localization and spatial speech recognition abilities?
    Neher T; Laugesen S; Jensen NS; Kragelund L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1542-58. PubMed ID: 21895093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A perspective on brain-behavior relationships and effects of age and hearing using speech-in-noise stimuli.
    Billings CJ; Madsen BM
    Hear Res; 2018 Nov; 369():90-102. PubMed ID: 29661615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The effects of noise exposure and musical training on suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise.
    Yeend I; Beach EF; Sharma M; Dillon H
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():224-236. PubMed ID: 28780178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The just-noticeable difference in speech-to-noise ratio.
    McShefferty D; Whitmer WM; Akeroyd MA
    Trends Hear; 2015 Feb; 19():. PubMed ID: 25681327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Hearing impairment, cognition and speech understanding: exploratory factor analyses of a comprehensive test battery for a group of hearing aid users, the n200 study.
    Rönnberg J; Lunner T; Ng EH; Lidestam B; Zekveld AA; Sörqvist P; Lyxell B; Träff U; Yumba W; Classon E; Hällgren M; Larsby B; Signoret C; Pichora-Fuller MK; Rudner M; Danielsson H; Stenfelt S
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):623-42. PubMed ID: 27589015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The Danish hearing in noise test.
    Nielsen JB; Dau T
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Mar; 50(3):202-8. PubMed ID: 21319937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The effect of simulated unilateral hearing loss on horizontal sound localization accuracy and recognition of speech in spatially separate competing speech.
    Asp F; Jakobsson AM; Berninger E
    Hear Res; 2018 Jan; 357():54-63. PubMed ID: 29190488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise.
    Gosselin PA; Gagné JP
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):786-92. PubMed ID: 21916790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The performance of an automatic acoustic-based program classifier compared to hearing aid users' manual selection of listening programs.
    Searchfield GD; Linford T; Kobayashi K; Crowhen D; Latzel M
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):201-212. PubMed ID: 29069954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: II. Fluctuating noise.
    Smits C; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):3004-15. PubMed ID: 23654404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Prediction of consonant recognition in quiet for listeners with normal and impaired hearing using an auditory model.
    Jürgens T; Ewert SD; Kollmeier B; Brand T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1506-17. PubMed ID: 24606286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Better-ear glimpsing in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Best V; Mason CR; Kidd G; Iyer N; Brungart DS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):EL213-9. PubMed ID: 25698053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.