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 *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31045653)

  • 41. Effects of directional sound processing and listener's motivation on EEG responses to continuous noisy speech: Do normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners differ?
    Mirkovic B; Debener S; Schmidt J; Jaeger M; Neher T
    Hear Res; 2019 Jun; 377():260-270. PubMed ID: 31003037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The effect of audiovisual and binaural listening on the acceptable noise level (ANL): establishing an ANL conceptual model.
    Wu YH; Stangl E; Pang C; Zhang X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):141-53. PubMed ID: 24828215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Measuring the Influence of Noise Reduction on Listening Effort in Hearing-Impaired Listeners Using Response Times to an Arithmetic Task in Noise.
    Reinten I; De Ronde-Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler W
    Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211014437. PubMed ID: 34027725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Evaluation of auditory functions for Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.
    Vaillancourt V; Laroche C; Giguère C; Beaulieu MA; Legault JP
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Jun; 22(6):313-31. PubMed ID: 21864470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. Perceived listening effort and speech intelligibility in reverberation and noise for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Schepker H; Haeder K; Rennies J; Holube I
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Dec; 55(12):738-747. PubMed ID: 27627181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The Effect of Musical Training and Working Memory in Adverse Listening Situations.
    Escobar J; Mussoi BS; Silberer AB
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(2):278-288. PubMed ID: 32106117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction.
    Sarampalis A; Kalluri S; Edwards B; Hafter E
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2009 Oct; 52(5):1230-40. PubMed ID: 19380604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Unilateral Hearing Loss: Understanding Speech Recognition and Localization Variability-Implications for Cochlear Implant Candidacy.
    Firszt JB; Reeder RM; Holden LK
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(2):159-173. PubMed ID: 28067750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Effects of user training with electronically-modulated sound transmission hearing protectors and the open ear on horizontal localization ability.
    Casali JG; Robinette MB
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Feb; 54 Suppl 1():S37-45. PubMed ID: 25549166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. The Effects of Noise and Reverberation on Listening Effort in Adults With Normal Hearing.
    Picou EM; Gordon J; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 26372266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Speech recognition in noise with active and passive hearing protectors: a comparative study.
    Bockstael A; De Coensel B; Botteldooren D; D'Haenens W; Keppler H; Maes L; Philips B; Swinnen F; Bart V
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jun; 129(6):3702-15. PubMed ID: 21682395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. Effect of Blast Injury on Auditory Localization in Military Service Members.
    Kubli LR; Brungart D; Northern J
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(3):457-469. PubMed ID: 29287039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Fit for the frontline? identification of mission-critical auditory tasks (MCATs) carried out by infantry and combat-support personnel.
    Semeraro HD; Bevis ZL; Rowan D; van Besouw RM; Allsopp AJ
    Noise Health; 2015; 17(75):98-107. PubMed ID: 25774613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 22874643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Speech intelligibility and passive, level-dependent earplugs.
    Norin JA; Emanuel DC; Letowski TR
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):642-9. PubMed ID: 21407078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Selecting Appropriate Tests to Assess the Benefits of Bilateral Amplification With Hearing Aids.
    van Schoonhoven J; Schulte M; Boymans M; Wagener KC; Dreschler WA; Kollmeier B
    Trends Hear; 2016 Jul; 20():. PubMed ID: 27460871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Semantic context improves speech intelligibility and reduces listening effort for listeners with hearing impairment.
    Holmes E; Folkeard P; Johnsrude IS; Scollie S
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jul; 57(7):483-492. PubMed ID: 29415585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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