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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29857764)

  • 1. Erratum: Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142(6), EL537-EL543 (2017)].
    Croghan NBH; Duran SI; Smith ZM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 May; 143(5):2621. PubMed ID: 29857764
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Fundamental frequency discrimination and speech perception in noise in cochlear implant simulations.
    Carroll J; Zeng FG
    Hear Res; 2007 Sep; 231(1-2):42-53. PubMed ID: 17604581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Side effects of fast-acting dynamic range compression that affect intelligibility in a competing speech task.
    Stone MA; Moore BC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Oct; 116(4 Pt 1):2311-23. PubMed ID: 15532662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Erratum: Factors limiting vocal-tract length discrimination in cochlear implant simulations [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 137(3), 1298-1308 (2015)].
    Gaudrain E; Başkent D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Apr; 139(4):1734. PubMed ID: 27106320
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effects of reverberant self- and overlap-masking on speech recognition in cochlear implant listeners.
    Desmond JM; Collins LM; Throckmorton CS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jun; 135(6):EL304-10. PubMed ID: 24907838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility.
    Croghan NBH; Duran SI; Smith ZM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Dec; 142(6):EL537. PubMed ID: 29289062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comment on "Interaural alternation, information load, and speech intelligibility" (J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 57, 1219-1220 (1975)).
    Speaks C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1976 Jul; 60(1):272-8. PubMed ID: 956532
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An addendum to "Effects of Noise on Speech Production: Acoustic and Perceptual Analyses" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84, 917-928 (1988)].
    Summers WV; Johnson K; Pisoni DB; Bernacki RH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Nov; 86(5):1717-21. PubMed ID: 2808921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Envelope and intensity based prediction of psychoacoustic masking and speech intelligibility.
    Biberger T; Ewert SD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Aug; 140(2):1023. PubMed ID: 27586734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Use of intonation contours for speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant recipients.
    Meister H; Landwehr M; Pyschny V; Grugel L; Walger M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 May; 129(5):EL204-9. PubMed ID: 21568376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of spectro-temporal modulation changes produced by multi-channel compression on intelligibility in a competing-speech task.
    Stone MA; Moore BC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1063-76. PubMed ID: 18247908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects.
    Collins LM; Zwolan TA; Wakefield GH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Jan; 101(1):440-55. PubMed ID: 9000735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Nelson PB; Jin SH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 May; 115(5 Pt 1):2286-94. PubMed ID: 15139640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Erratum: Effects of age and hearing mechanism on spectral resolution in normal hearing and cochlear-implanted listeners [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141(1), 613-623 (2017)].
    Horn DL; Dudley DJ; Dedhia K; Nie K; Drennan WR; Won JH; Rubinstein JT; Werner LA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):2977. PubMed ID: 28599570
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effect of permutations of time samples in the speech waveform on intelligibility.
    Gotoh S; Tohyama M; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jul; 142(1):249. PubMed ID: 28764474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Erratum: Cognitive disruption by noise-vocoded speech stimuli: Effects of spectral variation [J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
    Senan T; Jelfs S; Kohlrausch A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Sep; 144(3):1330. PubMed ID: 30424614
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Erratum: Numerical simulation of ultrasonic wave propagation for the evaluation of dental implant biomechanical stability [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 4062-4072 (2011)].
    Mathieu V; Anagnostou F; Soffer E; Haiat G
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):1048. PubMed ID: 25698038
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Speech intelligibility as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Beers M; Boermans PP; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):445-58. PubMed ID: 21258238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of manipulating the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio on speech intelligibility.
    Jørgensen S; Decorsière R; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1401-10. PubMed ID: 25786952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.