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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3558964)

  • 21. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test.
    Warzybok A; Zokoll M; Wardenga N; Ozimek E; Boboshko M; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():35-43. PubMed ID: 25843088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Notched-noise measures of frequency selectivity in adults and children using fixed-masker-level and fixed-signal-level presentation.
    Hall JW; Grose JH
    J Speech Hear Res; 1991 Jun; 34(3):651-60. PubMed ID: 2072690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effects of attention on the speech reception threshold and pupil response of people with impaired and normal hearing.
    Koelewijn T; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2017 Oct; 354():56-63. PubMed ID: 28869841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A speech enhancement scheme incorporating spectral expansion evaluated with simulated loss of frequency selectivity.
    Lyzenga J; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Sep; 112(3 Pt 1):1145-57. PubMed ID: 12243161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Investigation of a matrix sentence test in noise: reproducibility and discrimination function in cochlear implant patients.
    Hey M; Hocke T; Hedderich J; Müller-Deile J
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Dec; 53(12):895-902. PubMed ID: 25140602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The efficacy of a multichannel hearing aid in which the gain is controlled by the minima in the temporal signal envelope.
    Festen JM; van Dijkhuizen JN; Plomp R
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():101-10. PubMed ID: 8153556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Speech recognition threshold in noise: effects of hearing loss, frequency response, and speech materials.
    Van Tasell DJ; Yanz JL
    J Speech Hear Res; 1987 Sep; 30(3):377-86. PubMed ID: 3669644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Development and evaluation of a mixed gender, multi-talker matrix sentence test in Australian English.
    Kelly H; Lin G; Sankaran N; Xia J; Kalluri S; Carlile S
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Feb; 56(2):85-91. PubMed ID: 27758153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Candidates for multiple frequency response characteristics.
    Keidser G; Dillon H; Byrne D
    Ear Hear; 1995 Dec; 16(6):562-74. PubMed ID: 8747806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. The effect of linguistic entropy on speech perception in noise in young and elderly listeners.
    van Rooij JC; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1991 Dec; 90(6):2985-91. PubMed ID: 1787238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Matrix sentence intelligibility prediction using an automatic speech recognition system.
    Schädler MR; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():100-7. PubMed ID: 26383042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: steady-state noise.
    Smits C; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2987-98. PubMed ID: 22087927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice.
    Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Sep; 94(3 Pt 1):1295-300. PubMed ID: 8408970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation?
    Hochmuth S; Jürgens T; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():23-34. PubMed ID: 26486466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Development of the Continuous Number Identification Test (CNIT): feasibility of dynamic assessment of speech intelligibility.
    Ozmeral EJ; Hoover EC; Gabbidon P; Eddins DA
    Int J Audiol; 2020 Jun; 59(6):434-442. PubMed ID: 32003257
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. I.
    ter Keurs M; Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 May; 91(5):2872-80. PubMed ID: 1629480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.