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)

  • 21. Evaluation of the speech perception in noise (SPIN) test.
    Hutcherson RW; Dirks DD; Morgan DE
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (1979); 1979; 87(2):239-45. PubMed ID: 503495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S).
    Cameron S; Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):196-211. PubMed ID: 17496671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The role of visual speech cues in reducing energetic and informational masking.
    Helfer KS; Freyman RL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Feb; 117(2):842-9. PubMed ID: 15759704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release.
    Gnansia D; Jourdes V; Lorenzi C
    Hear Res; 2008 May; 239(1-2):60-8. PubMed ID: 18434049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. An Italian matrix sentence test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise.
    Puglisi GE; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Visentin C; Astolfi A; Prodi N; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():44-50. PubMed ID: 26371592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise.
    Smits C; Theo Goverts S; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1693-706. PubMed ID: 23464039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A pilot experiment on the effects of an acoustically applied reduced speech signal on speechreading.
    Coninx F; Vermuelen A; Zierhofer C
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():136-44. PubMed ID: 8153559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Festen JM; van Beek JH; Rönnberg J
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(6):e16-25. PubMed ID: 21826004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Psychophysical suppression effects for tonal and speech signals.
    Dubno JR; Ahlstrom JB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Oct; 110(4):2108-19. PubMed ID: 11681388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration.
    Grant KW; Walden BE; Seitz PF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 May; 103(5 Pt 1):2677-90. PubMed ID: 9604361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The effect of varying the slope of the amplitude-frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Anema PC; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1987 Feb; 81(2):465-9. PubMed ID: 3558964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing.
    Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Oct; 88(4):1725-36. PubMed ID: 2262629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Hearing Loss and Speech Recognition in the Elderly].
    von Gablenz P; Holube I
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2017 Nov; 96(11):759-764. PubMed ID: 29132188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [Improvement in Phoneme Discrimination in Noise in Normal Hearing Adults].
    Schumann A; Garea Garcia L; Hoppe U
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2017 Feb; 96(2):98-103. PubMed ID: 27632530
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Clinical study of speech understanding in noise].
    Tremblay C; Picard M; Barbarosie T; Banville R
    Audiology; 1991; 30(4):212-40. PubMed ID: 1755750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests.
    Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B; Brand T; Jürgens T
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():62-70. PubMed ID: 26097982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Infant-adult differences in unmasked thresholds for the discrimination of consonant-vowel syllable pairs.
    Nozza RJ; Rossman RN; Bond LC
    Audiology; 1991; 30(2):102-12. PubMed ID: 1877897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Alterations of speech audiometry in presbycusis brought about by cochlear acoustic emissions].
    Bonfils P
    J Otolaryngol; 1988 Aug; 17(5):207-10. PubMed ID: 3216441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences.
    Plomp R; Mimpen AM
    Audiology; 1979; 18(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 760724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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