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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38676325)

  • 1. On the Feasibility of Using Behavioral Listening Effort Test Methods to Evaluate Auditory Performance in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Hendrikse MME; Dingemanse G; Goedegebure A
    Trends Hear; 2024; 28():23312165241240572. PubMed ID: 38676325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
    Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
    Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners.
    Hazrati O; Loizou PC
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 51(6):437-43. PubMed ID: 22356300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Speech perception in tones and noise via cochlear implants reveals influence of spectral resolution on temporal processing.
    Oxenham AJ; Kreft HA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Speech enhancement based on neural networks improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implant users.
    Goehring T; Bolner F; Monaghan JJ; van Dijk B; Zarowski A; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():183-194. PubMed ID: 27913315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
    Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. How directional microphones affect speech recognition, listening effort and localisation for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Dec; 56(12):909-918. PubMed ID: 28738747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of different cochlear implant microphones on acoustic hearing individuals' binaural benefits for speech perception in noise.
    Aronoff JM; Freed DJ; Fisher LM; Pal I; Soli SD
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):468-84. PubMed ID: 21412155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise.
    Pals C; Sarampalis A; van Dijk M; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 29757801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Impact of room acoustic parameters on speech and music perception among participants with cochlear implants.
    Eurich B; Klenzner T; Oehler M
    Hear Res; 2019 Jun; 377():122-132. PubMed ID: 30933704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Two-microphone spatial filtering improves speech reception for cochlear-implant users in reverberant conditions with multiple noise sources.
    Goldsworthy RL
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25330772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Simultaneous suppression of noise and reverberation in cochlear implants using a ratio masking strategy.
    Hazrati O; Sadjadi SO; Loizou PC; Hansen JH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):3759-65. PubMed ID: 24180786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation.
    Ohlenforst B; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Wendt D; Naylor G; Wang Y; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():68-79. PubMed ID: 28622894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of adaptive dynamic range optimization in adverse listening conditions for cochlear implants.
    Ali H; Hazrati O; Tobey EA; Hansen JH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):EL242. PubMed ID: 25190428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.
    Srinivasan AG; Padilla M; Shannon RV; Landsberger DM
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():29-36. PubMed ID: 23467170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.