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 *

197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29960450)

  • 41. Voice alerting as a medical alarm modality for next-generation patient monitoring: a randomised international multicentre trial.
    Roche TR; Braun J; Ganter MT; Meybohm P; Herrmann J; Zacharowski K; Raimann FJ; Piekarski F; Spahn DR; Nöthiger CB; Tscholl DW; Said S
    Br J Anaesth; 2021 Nov; 127(5):769-777. PubMed ID: 34454710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Microscopic prediction of speech intelligibility in spatially distributed speech-shaped noise for normal-hearing listeners.
    Geravanchizadeh M; Fallah A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):4004-15. PubMed ID: 26723354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Noise tolerance in human frequency-following responses to voice pitch.
    Li X; Jeng FC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jan; 129(1):EL21-6. PubMed ID: 21302977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Maintaining intelligibility at high intensities with arrays of subcritical width speech bands and interpolated noise.
    Bashford JA; Warren RM; Lenz PW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Sep; 142(3):EL299. PubMed ID: 28964061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Language experience-dependent advantage in pitch representation in the auditory cortex is limited to favorable signal-to-noise ratios.
    Suresh CH; Krishnan A; Gandour JT
    Hear Res; 2017 Nov; 355():42-53. PubMed ID: 28927640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: effect of masker type.
    Deroche ML; Culling JF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):EL465-70. PubMed ID: 24181992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The role of short-time intensity and envelope power for speech intelligibility and psychoacoustic masking.
    Biberger T; Ewert SD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Aug; 142(2):1098. PubMed ID: 28863616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Speech enhancement using a generic noise codebook.
    Srinivasan S; Rao Naidu DH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):EL161-7. PubMed ID: 22894316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. The multiple contributions of interaural differences to improved speech intelligibility in multitalker scenarios.
    Schoenmaker E; Brand T; van de Par S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 May; 139(5):2589. PubMed ID: 27250153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Segmentation of binaural room impulse responses for speech intelligibility prediction.
    Kokabi O; Brinkmann F; Weinzierl S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Nov; 144(5):2793. PubMed ID: 30522312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. On the importance of early reflections for speech in rooms.
    Bradley JS; Sato H; Picard M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Jun; 113(6):3233-44. PubMed ID: 12822796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Ergonomic Auditory Alarm Signals for the Oil and Chemical Processing Industry.
    Edworthy J; Edworthy J; Reed D; Wessel C; Lawrence L
    IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors; 2021; 9(2):86-95. PubMed ID: 34856885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The influence of spectral characteristics of early reflections on speech intelligibility.
    Arweiler I; Buchholz JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Aug; 130(2):996-1005. PubMed ID: 21877812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Acoustic changes in the production of lexical stress during Lombard speech.
    Arciuli J; Simpson BS; Vogel AP; Ballard KJ
    Lang Speech; 2014 Jun; 57(Pt 2):149-62. PubMed ID: 25102603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Coherence and the speech intelligibility index.
    Kates JM; Arehart KH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Apr; 117(4 Pt 1):2224-37. PubMed ID: 15898663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. The effect of sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus on speech recognition over air and bone conduction military communications headsets.
    Manning C; Mermagen T; Scharine A
    Hear Res; 2017 Jun; 349():67-75. PubMed ID: 27989949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Factors Affecting Acoustics and Speech Intelligibility in the Operating Room: Size Matters.
    McNeer RR; Bennett CL; Horn DB; Dudaryk R
    Anesth Analg; 2017 Jun; 124(6):1978-1985. PubMed ID: 28525511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Audiovisual training is better than auditory-only training for auditory-only speech-in-noise identification.
    Lidestam B; Moradi S; Pettersson R; Ricklefs T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):EL142-7. PubMed ID: 25096138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Detection and reaction thresholds for reverse alarms in noise with and without passive hearing protection.
    Laroche C; Giguère C; Vaillancourt V; Roy K; Pageot LP; Nélisse H; Ellaham N; Nassrallah F
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Feb; 57(sup1):S51-S60. PubMed ID: 29172790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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