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.
7. A computerized adaptive testing system for speech discrimination measurement: the Speech Sound Pattern Discrimination Test. Bochner J; Garrison W; Palmer L; MacKenzie D; Braveman A J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Apr; 101(4):2289-98. PubMed ID: 9104030 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Speech discrimination in noise for patients with cochlear implants]. Hamzavi J; Adunka O; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W Wien Klin Wochenschr; 2000 Jun; 112(11):498-504. PubMed ID: 10890128 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Determining perceived sound quality in a simulated hearing aid using the international speech test signal. Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC; Moats P Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):533-5. PubMed ID: 21325947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [The adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic test in noise : Development of a procedure and comparison of the results with the Oldenburg sentence test]. Memmeler T; Schönweiler R; Wollenberg B; Löhler J HNO; 2019 Feb; 67(2):118-125. PubMed ID: 30519714 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Closed-Set Speech Discrimination Tests for Assessing Young Children. Vickers DA; Moore BCJ; Majeed A; Stephenson N; Alferaih H; Baer T; Marriage JE Ear Hear; 2018; 39(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 29189292 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comparison of two tests of speech-sound discrimination. Bountress NG; Laderberg CM J Commun Disord; 1981 Mar; 14(2):149-56. PubMed ID: 7251918 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Relationship between two nontraditional procedures for assessing speech-sound discrimination. Bountress NG; Sever JC; Williams JT Percept Mot Skills; 1989 Oct; 69(2):499-503. PubMed ID: 2812996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of speech discrimination in noise and directional hearing with 2 different sound processors of a bone-anchored hearing system in adults with unilateral severe or profound sensorineural hearing loss. Wesarg T; Aschendorff A; Laszig R; Beck R; Schild C; Hassepass F; Kroeger S; Hocke T; Arndt S Otol Neurotol; 2013 Aug; 34(6):1064-70. PubMed ID: 23856626 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Development and preliminary evaluation of a new test of ongoing speech comprehension. Best V; Keidser G; Buchholz JM; Freeston K Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(1):45-52. PubMed ID: 26158403 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Speech recognition and the Articulation Index for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Kamm CA; Dirks DD; Bell TS J Acoust Soc Am; 1985 Jan; 77(1):281-8. PubMed ID: 3973220 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Speech intelligibility as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults. van Dijkhuizen JN; Beers M; Boermans PP; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):445-58. PubMed ID: 21258238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]