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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36319233)

  • 61. A harmonic-cancellation-based model to predict speech intelligibility against a harmonic masker.
    Prud'homme L; Lavandier M; Best V
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Nov; 148(5):3246. PubMed ID: 33261378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. An algorithm that improves speech intelligibility in noise for normal-hearing listeners.
    Kim G; Lu Y; Hu Y; Loizou PC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Sep; 126(3):1486-94. PubMed ID: 19739761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Speech reception with different bilateral directional processing schemes: Influence of binaural hearing, audiometric asymmetry, and acoustic scenario.
    Neher T; Wagener KC; Latzel M
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():36-48. PubMed ID: 28783570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Word-recognition performance in interrupted noise by young listeners with normal hearing and older listeners with hearing loss.
    Wilson RH; McArdle R; Betancourt MB; Herring K; Lipton T; Chisolm TH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2010 Feb; 21(2):90-109. PubMed ID: 20166311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. The Effects of Sensorineural Hearing Impairment on Asynchronous Glimpsing of Speech.
    Ozmeral EJ; Buss E; Hall JW
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(5):e0154920. PubMed ID: 27144601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Effects of lifetime noise exposure on the middle-age human auditory brainstem response, tinnitus and speech-in-noise intelligibility.
    Valderrama JT; Beach EF; Yeend I; Sharma M; Van Dun B; Dillon H
    Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 365():36-48. PubMed ID: 29913342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Perceived listening effort and speech intelligibility in reverberation and noise for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Schepker H; Haeder K; Rennies J; Holube I
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Dec; 55(12):738-747. PubMed ID: 27627181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Extension and evaluation of a near-end listening enhancement algorithm for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Rennies J; Drefs J; Hülsmeier D; Schepker H; Doclo S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2526. PubMed ID: 28464693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Development of a Test Battery for Evaluating Speech Perception in Complex Listening Environments: Effects of Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
    Phatak SA; Sheffield BM; Brungart DS; Grant KW
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(3):449-456. PubMed ID: 29570117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. The influence of non-spatial factors on measures of spatial release from masking.
    Best V; Marrone N; Mason CR; Kidd G
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Apr; 131(4):3103-10. PubMed ID: 22501083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises.
    Desjardins JL; Doherty KA
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):261-72. PubMed ID: 23095723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Improved Sensitivity of Digits-in-Noise Test to High-Frequency Hearing Loss.
    Motlagh Zadeh L; Silbert NH; Swanepoel W; Moore DR
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(3):565-573. PubMed ID: 33928924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Masked Speech Perception Thresholds in Infants, Children, and Adults.
    Leibold LJ; Yarnell Bonino A; Buss E
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):345-53. PubMed ID: 26783855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
    Gifford RH; Stecker GC
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Sentence Recognition in Steady-State Speech-Shaped Noise versus Four-Talker Babble.
    Vermiglio AJ; Herring CC; Heeke P; Post CE; Fang X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Jan; 30(1):54-65. PubMed ID: 30461388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing.
    Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2084-94. PubMed ID: 12703719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Speech perception with music maskers by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners.
    Eskridge EN; Galvin JJ; Aronoff JM; Li T; Fu QJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2012 Jun; 55(3):800-10. PubMed ID: 22223890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Perception of speech produced by native and nonnative talkers by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with cochlear implants.
    Ji C; Galvin JJ; Chang YP; Xu A; Fu QJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 57(2):532-54. PubMed ID: 24686901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Inter-individual differences in binaural detection of low-frequency or high-frequency tonal signals masked by narrow-band or broadband noise.
    Bernstein LR; Trahiotis C; Hyde EL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Apr; 103(4):2069-78. PubMed ID: 9566329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Relations between perceptual measures of temporal processing, auditory-evoked brainstem responses and speech intelligibility in noise.
    Papakonstantinou A; Strelcyk O; Dau T
    Hear Res; 2011 Oct; 280(1-2):30-7. PubMed ID: 21354285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.