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 *

252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3594015)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Validating a Method to Assess Lipreading, Audiovisual Gain, and Integration During Speech Reception With Cochlear-Implanted and Normal-Hearing Subjects Using a Talking Head.
    Schreitmüller S; Frenken M; Bentz L; Ortmann M; Walger M; Meister H
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(3):503-516. PubMed ID: 29068860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Audiovisual asynchrony detection and speech intelligibility in noise with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing impairment.
    Başkent D; Bazo D
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):582-92. PubMed ID: 21389856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The Norwegian Hearing in Noise Test for Children.
    Myhrum M; Tvete OE; Heldahl MG; Moen I; Soli SD
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(1):80-92. PubMed ID: 26462169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Audiovisual speech reception in noise and self-perceived hearing disability in sensorineural hearing loss.
    Corthals P; Vinck B; De Vel E; Van Cauwenberge P
    Audiology; 1997; 36(1):46-56. PubMed ID: 9063560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. During Lipreading Training With Sentence Stimuli, Feedback Controls Learning and Generalization to Audiovisual Speech in Noise.
    Bernstein LE; Auer ET; Eberhardt SP
    Am J Audiol; 2022 Mar; 31(1):57-77. PubMed ID: 34965362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The Principle of Inverse Effectiveness in Audiovisual Speech Perception.
    van de Rijt LPH; Roye A; Mylanus EAM; van Opstal AJ; van Wanrooij MM
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2019; 13():335. PubMed ID: 31611780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Increased Connectivity among Sensory and Motor Regions during Visual and Audiovisual Speech Perception.
    Peelle JE; Spehar B; Jones MS; McConkey S; Myerson J; Hale S; Sommers MS; Tye-Murray N
    J Neurosci; 2022 Jan; 42(3):435-442. PubMed ID: 34815317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Pre- and Postoperative Binaural Unmasking for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):554-567. PubMed ID: 28301390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Development and evaluation of video recordings for the OLSA matrix sentence test.
    Llorach G; Kirschner F; Grimm G; Zokoll MA; Wagener KC; Hohmann V
    Int J Audiol; 2022 Apr; 61(4):311-321. PubMed ID: 34109902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test.
    Zokoll MA; Fidan D; Türkyılmaz D; Hochmuth S; Ergenç İ; Sennaroğlu G; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():51-61. PubMed ID: 26443486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Gaze patterns and audiovisual speech enhancement.
    Yi A; Wong W; Eizenman M
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Apr; 56(2):471-80. PubMed ID: 23275394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.