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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32105143)

  • 21. Selective auditory attention in adults: effects of rhythmic structure of the competing language.
    Reel LA; Hicks CB
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2012 Feb; 55(1):89-104. PubMed ID: 22199199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Enhancing listener strategies using a payoff matrix in speech-on-speech masking experiments.
    Thompson ER; Iyer N; Simpson BD; Wakefield GH; Kieras DE; Brungart DS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Sep; 138(3):1297-304. PubMed ID: 26428768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises.
    Desjardins JL; Doherty KA
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):261-72. PubMed ID: 23095723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test.
    Cameron S; Dillon H; Newall P
    Ear Hear; 2006 Feb; 27(1):30-42. PubMed ID: 16446563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test.
    Wendt D; Koelewijn T; Książek P; Kramer SE; Lunner T
    Hear Res; 2018 Nov; 369():67-78. PubMed ID: 29858121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: language familiarity and semantic content.
    Brouwer S; Van Engen KJ; Calandruccio L; Bradlow AR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Feb; 131(2):1449-64. PubMed ID: 22352516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Enhancing speech intelligibility: interactions among context, modality, speech style, and masker.
    Van Engen KJ; Phelps JE; Smiljanic R; Chandrasekaran B
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 57(5):1908-18. PubMed ID: 24687206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. No interaction between fundamental-frequency differences and spectral region when perceiving speech in a speech background.
    Madsen SMK; Dau T; Oxenham AJ
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(4):e0249654. PubMed ID: 33826663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Highly accurate and robust identity perception from personally familiar voices.
    Kanber E; Lavan N; McGettigan C
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2022 Apr; 151(4):897-911. PubMed ID: 34672658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Developmental Effects in Children's Ability to Benefit From F0 Differences Between Target and Masker Speech.
    Flaherty MM; Buss E; Leibold LJ
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(4):927-937. PubMed ID: 30334835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Intelligibility of emotional speech in younger and older adults.
    Dupuis K; Pichora-Fuller MK
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):695-707. PubMed ID: 25127327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Rönnberg J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep; 134(3):2225-34. PubMed ID: 23967952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Development of Open-Set Word Recognition in Children: Speech-Shaped Noise and Two-Talker Speech Maskers.
    Corbin NE; Bonino AY; Buss E; Leibold LJ
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(1):55-63. PubMed ID: 26226605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers.
    Stickney GS; Zeng FG; Litovsky R; Assmann P
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Aug; 116(2):1081-91. PubMed ID: 15376674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response.
    Ohlenforst B; Wendt D; Kramer SE; Naylor G; Zekveld AA; Lunner T
    Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 365():90-99. PubMed ID: 29779607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Talker-specific learning in speech perception.
    Nygaard LC; Pisoni DB
    Percept Psychophys; 1998 Apr; 60(3):355-76. PubMed ID: 9599989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Masked English Speech Recognition Performance in Younger and Older Spanish-English Bilingual and English Monolingual Children.
    Miller MK; Calandruccio L; Buss E; McCreery RW; Oleson J; Rodriguez B; Leibold LJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2019 Dec; 62(12):4578-4591. PubMed ID: 31830845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.