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 *

240 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29708061)

  • 21. Speech intelligibility benefits of hearing AIDS at various input levels.
    Kuk F; Lau CC; Korhonen P; Crose B
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):275-88. PubMed ID: 25751695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Evaluation of a multi-channel algorithm for reducing transient sounds.
    Keshavarzi M; Baer T; Moore BCJ
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Aug; 57(8):624-631. PubMed ID: 29764254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Perceived sound quality of different signal processing algorithms by cochlear implant listeners in real-world acoustic environments.
    Chung K
    J Commun Disord; 2020; 83():105973. PubMed ID: 31901876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The effects of selective consonant amplification on sentence recognition in noise by hearing-impaired listeners.
    Saripella R; Loizou PC; Thibodeau L; Alford JA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):3028-37. PubMed ID: 22087930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 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. Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?
    Huber R; Bisitz T; Gerkmann T; Kiessling J; Meister H; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S55-S61. PubMed ID: 28112001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Speech-clarity judgments of hearing-aid-processed speech in noise: differing polar patterns and acoustic environments.
    Amlani AM; Rakerd B; Punch JL
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Jun; 45(6):319-30. PubMed ID: 16777778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Effect of Digital Noise Reduction in Hearing Aids on Speech Intelligibility in Both Quiet and Noisy Environments.
    Deniz B; Gülmez ZD; Kara H; Kara E
    Noise Health; 2024 Apr-Jun 01; 26(121):220-225. PubMed ID: 38904826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility in normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners.
    Xia J; Xu B; Pentony S; Xu J; Swaminathan J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Mar; 143(3):1523. PubMed ID: 29604671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.
    Baer T; Moore BC; Gatehouse S
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):49-72. PubMed ID: 8263829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effects of transient noise reduction algorithms on speech intelligibility and ratings of hearing aid users.
    DiGiovanni JJ; Davlin EA; Nagaraj NK
    Am J Audiol; 2011 Dec; 20(2):140-50. PubMed ID: 21940982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The Benefits of Bimodal Aiding on Extended Dimensions of Speech Perception: Intelligibility, Listening Effort, and Sound Quality.
    Devocht EMJ; Janssen AML; Chalupper J; Stokroos RJ; George ELJ
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517727900. PubMed ID: 28874096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Speech perception in noise: Impact of directional microphones in users of combined electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Weissgerber T; Stöver T; Baumann U
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(3):e0213251. PubMed ID: 30840668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Deep learning restores speech intelligibility in multi-talker interference for cochlear implant users.
    Borjigin A; Kokkinakis K; Bharadwaj HM; Stohl JS
    Sci Rep; 2024 Jun; 14(1):13241. PubMed ID: 38853168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Efficacy of a Hearing Aid Noise Reduction Function.
    Wong LLN; Chen Y; Wang Q; Kuehnel V
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518782839. PubMed ID: 29956591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.