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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37172414)

  • 21. Construction and evaluation of the Mandarin Chinese matrix (CMNmatrix) sentence test for the assessment of speech recognition in noise.
    Hu H; Xi X; Wong LLN; Hochmuth S; Warzybok A; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):838-850. PubMed ID: 30178681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Leading and following: Noise differently affects semantic and acoustic processing during naturalistic speech comprehension.
    Zhang X; Li J; Li Z; Hong B; Diao T; Ma X; Nolte G; Engel AK; Zhang D
    Neuroimage; 2023 Nov; 282():120404. PubMed ID: 37806465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Distinct roles of delta- and theta-band neural tracking for sharpening and predictive coding of multi-level speech features during spoken language processing.
    Mai G; Wang WS
    Hum Brain Mapp; 2023 Dec; 44(17):6149-6172. PubMed ID: 37818940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of cochlear implant n-of-m strategy on signal-to-noise ratio below which noise hinders speech recognition.
    Stam L; Goverts ST; Smits C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 May; 145(5):EL417. PubMed ID: 31153330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Set-size procedures for controlling variations in speech-reception performance with a fluctuating masker.
    Bernstein JG; Summers V; Iyer N; Brungart DS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2676-89. PubMed ID: 23039460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
    Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response.
    Ohlenforst B; Wendt D; Kramer SE; Naylor G; Zekveld AA; Lunner T
    Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 365():90-99. PubMed ID: 29779607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: II. Fluctuating noise.
    Smits C; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):3004-15. PubMed ID: 23654404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Relation Between Listening Effort and Speech Intelligibility in Noise.
    Krueger M; Schulte M; Zokoll MA; Wagener KC; Meis M; Brand T; Holube I
    Am J Audiol; 2017 Oct; 26(3S):378-392. PubMed ID: 29049622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Speech onset enhancement improves intelligibility in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implant users.
    Koning R; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2016 Dec; 342():13-22. PubMed ID: 27697583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effects of acoustic periodicity and intelligibility on the neural oscillations in response to speech.
    Steinmetzger K; Rosen S
    Neuropsychologia; 2017 Jan; 95():173-181. PubMed ID: 27939190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Neural tracking as a diagnostic tool to assess the auditory pathway.
    Gillis M; Van Canneyt J; Francart T; Vanthornhout J
    Hear Res; 2022 Dec; 426():108607. PubMed ID: 36137861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing.
    Jørgensen S; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1475-87. PubMed ID: 21895088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The MAndarin spoken word-Picture IDentification test in noise-Adaptive (MAPID-A) measures subtle speech-recognition-in-noise changes and spatial release from masking in very young children.
    Yuen KCP; Qiu XY; Mou HY; Xi X
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(1):e0209768. PubMed ID: 30629627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Intelligibility prediction for speech mixed with white Gaussian noise at low signal-to-noise ratios.
    Graetzer S; Hopkins C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Feb; 149(2):1346. PubMed ID: 33639794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing.
    Bernstein JG; Summers V; Grassi E; Grant KW
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Apr; 24(4):307-28. PubMed ID: 23636211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Listening effort and speech intelligibility in listening situations affected by noise and reverberation.
    Rennies J; Schepker H; Holube I; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Nov; 136(5):2642-53. PubMed ID: 25373965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Speech Intelligibility Predicted from Neural Entrainment of the Speech Envelope.
    Vanthornhout J; Decruy L; Wouters J; Simon JZ; Francart T
    J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2018 Apr; 19(2):181-191. PubMed ID: 29464412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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