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: 3429736)

  • 1. The effect of speechreading on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in noise.
    Middelweerd MJ; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1987 Dec; 82(6):2145-7. PubMed ID: 3429736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use.
    MacLeod A; Summerfield Q
    Br J Audiol; 1990 Feb; 24(1):29-43. PubMed ID: 2317599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners.
    Duquesnoy AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1983 Oct; 74(4):1136-44. PubMed ID: 6643835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Audiovisual integration and lipreading abilities of older adults with normal and impaired hearing.
    Tye-Murray N; Sommers MS; Spehar B
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):656-68. PubMed ID: 17804980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quantifying the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise.
    MacLeod A; Summerfield Q
    Br J Audiol; 1987 May; 21(2):131-41. PubMed ID: 3594015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The use of visible speech cues for improving auditory detection of spoken sentences.
    Grant KW; Seitz PF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Sep; 108(3 Pt 1):1197-208. PubMed ID: 11008820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: Part I--laboratory tests.
    Wu YH; Bentler RA
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):22-34. PubMed ID: 19864954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A single-band envelope cue as a supplement to speechreading of segmentals: a comparison of auditory versus tactual presentation.
    Bratakos MS; Reed CM; Delhorne LA; Denesvich G
    Ear Hear; 2001 Jun; 22(3):225-35. PubMed ID: 11409858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise.
    Gustafsson HA; Arlinger SD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Jan; 95(1):518-29. PubMed ID: 8120263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Selective hearing in the aged with regard to speech perception in quiet and in noise.
    von Wedel H; von Wedel UC; Streppel M
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 476():131-5. PubMed ID: 2087953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise.
    Hagerman B
    Scand Audiol; 1984; 13(1):57-63. PubMed ID: 6719016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Context effects in speech recognition of sentences].
    Züst HJ; Tschopp K
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1995 Apr; 74(4):259-63. PubMed ID: 7772229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level.
    Plomp R; Mimpen AM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1979 Nov; 66(5):1333-42. PubMed ID: 500971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids.
    Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1986 Feb; 79(2):465-71. PubMed ID: 3950200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Temporally pre-presented lipreading cues release speech from informational masking.
    Wu C; Cao S; Wu X; Li L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):EL281-5. PubMed ID: 23556692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of speechreading in presbycusis: Do we have a third ear?
    Reis LR; Escada P
    Otolaryngol Pol; 2017 Dec; 71(6):38-44. PubMed ID: 29327687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Differentiation of types of presbycusis using the masking-level difference.
    Novak RE; Anderson CV
    J Speech Hear Res; 1982 Dec; 25(4):504-8. PubMed ID: 7162150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The effect of varying the amplitude-frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences for hearing-impaired listeners.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Aug; 86(2):621-8. PubMed ID: 2768675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of simulated visual impairment on speech-reading ability.
    Dickinson CM; Taylor J
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2011 May; 31(3):249-57. PubMed ID: 21410739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.