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)

  • 41. New measures of masked text recognition in relation to speech-in-noise perception and their associations with age and cognitive abilities.
    Besser J; Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Rönnberg J; Festen JM
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2012 Feb; 55(1):194-209. PubMed ID: 22199191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The benefit obtained from visually displayed text from an automatic speech recognizer during listening to speech presented in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Kessens JM; Vlaming MS; Houtgast T
    Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):838-52. PubMed ID: 18633325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. [Characteristics, advantages, and limits of matrix tests].
    Brand T; Wagener KC
    HNO; 2017 Mar; 65(3):182-188. PubMed ID: 27538937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The development and evaluation of the Finnish Matrix Sentence Test for speech intelligibility assessment.
    Dietz A; Buschermöhle M; Aarnisalo AA; Vanhanen A; Hyyrynen T; Aaltonen O; Löppönen H; Zokoll MA; Kollmeier B
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2014 Jul; 134(7):728-37. PubMed ID: 24807850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Optimization of the Dutch matrix test by random selection of sentences from a preselected subset.
    Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Trends Hear; 2015 May; 19():. PubMed ID: 25964195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise.
    Wagener K; Josvassen JL; Ardenkjaer R
    Int J Audiol; 2003 Jan; 42(1):10-7. PubMed ID: 12564511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Characteristics and international comparability of the Finnish matrix sentence test in cochlear implant recipients.
    Dietz A; Buschermöhle M; Sivonen V; Willberg T; Aarnisalo AA; Lenarz T; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():80-7. PubMed ID: 26364512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Content and procedural learning in repeated sentence tests of speech perception.
    Yund EW; Woods DL
    Ear Hear; 2010 Dec; 31(6):769-78. PubMed ID: 20562624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Spectrotemporal Modulation Sensitivity as a Predictor of Speech-Reception Performance in Noise With Hearing Aids.
    Bernstein JG; Danielsson H; Hällgren M; Stenfelt S; Rönnberg J; Lunner T
    Trends Hear; 2016 Nov; 20():. PubMed ID: 27815546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. "How I do it"--otology and neurology. A specific issue and its solution. Silent masking.
    Brown LA
    Laryngoscope; 1978 Dec; 88(12):2035. PubMed ID: 732501
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. LIST and LINT: sentences and numbers for quantifying speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and the Netherlands.
    van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2008 Jun; 47(6):348-55. PubMed ID: 18569107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level.
    Summers V; Molis MR
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Apr; 47(2):245-56. PubMed ID: 15157127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Characterizing the Speech Reception Threshold in hearing-impaired listeners in relation to masker type and masker level.
    Rhebergen KS; Pool RE; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 24606285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception.
    Drullman R; Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Feb; 95(2):1053-64. PubMed ID: 8132899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Speech Understanding in Children With Normal Hearing: Sound Field Normative Data for BabyBio, BKB-SIN, and QuickSIN.
    Holder JT; Sheffield SW; Gifford RH
    Otol Neurotol; 2016 Feb; 37(2):e50-5. PubMed ID: 26756155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners.
    Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Jan; 111(1 Pt 1):401-8. PubMed ID: 11831813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise.
    Hochmuth S; Brand T; Zokoll MA; Castro FZ; Wardenga N; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Jul; 51(7):536-44. PubMed ID: 22537033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. An adaptive Australian Sentence Test in Noise (AuSTIN).
    Dawson PW; Hersbach AA; Swanson BA
    Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):592-600. PubMed ID: 23598772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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