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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38717214)

  • 1. Erratum: Interrupted mosaic speech revisited: Gain and loss in intelligibility by stretching [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 155(3), 1767-1779 (2024)].
    Ueda K; Hashimoto M; Takeichi H; Wakamiya K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 May; 155(5):3014. PubMed ID: 38717214
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interrupted mosaic speech revisited: Gain and loss in intelligibility by stretchinga).
    Ueda K; Hashimoto M; Takeichi H; Wakamiya K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Mar; 155(3):1767-1779. PubMed ID: 38441439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A context-based approach to predict speech intelligibility in interrupted noise: Model design.
    van Schoonhoven J; Rhebergen KS; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Feb; 151(2):1404. PubMed ID: 35232064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Erratum: Generalized perceptual adaptation to second-language speech: Variability, similarity, and intelligibility [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154, 1601-1613 (2023)].
    Bradlow AR; Bassard AM; Paller KA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2023 Oct; 154(4):2289. PubMed ID: 37830894
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluating the role of spectral and envelope characteristics in the intelligibility advantage of clear speech.
    Krause JC; Braida LD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3346-57. PubMed ID: 19425675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Erratum: Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142(6), EL537-EL543 (2017)].
    Croghan NBH; Duran SI; Smith ZM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 May; 143(5):2621. PubMed ID: 29857764
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Villchur revisited: another look at automatic gain control simulation of recruiting hearing loss.
    Duchnowski P; Zurek PM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1995 Dec; 98(6):3170-81. PubMed ID: 8550941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comment on "Interaural alternation, information load, and speech intelligibility" (J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 57, 1219-1220 (1975)).
    Speaks C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1976 Jul; 60(1):272-8. PubMed ID: 956532
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech intelligibility prediction based on modulation frequency-selective processing.
    Relaño-Iborra H; Dau T
    Hear Res; 2022 Dec; 426():108610. PubMed ID: 36163219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An addendum to "Effects of Noise on Speech Production: Acoustic and Perceptual Analyses" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84, 917-928 (1988)].
    Summers WV; Johnson K; Pisoni DB; Bernacki RH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Nov; 86(5):1717-21. PubMed ID: 2808921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Envelope and intensity based prediction of psychoacoustic masking and speech intelligibility.
    Biberger T; Ewert SD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Aug; 140(2):1023. PubMed ID: 27586734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of permutations of time samples in the speech waveform on intelligibility.
    Gotoh S; Tohyama M; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jul; 142(1):249. PubMed ID: 28764474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Intelligibility of interrupted sentences at subsegmental levels in young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners.
    Lee JH; Kewley-Port D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Feb; 125(2):1153-63. PubMed ID: 19206889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Application of an extended equalization-cancellation model to speech intelligibility with spatially distributed maskers.
    Wan R; Durlach NI; Colburn HS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Dec; 128(6):3678-90. PubMed ID: 21218900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Erratum: Cognitive disruption by noise-vocoded speech stimuli: Effects of spectral variation [J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
    Senan T; Jelfs S; Kohlrausch A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Sep; 144(3):1330. PubMed ID: 30424614
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Auditory grouping is necessary to understand interrupted mosaic speech stimuli.
    Ueda K; Takeichi H; Wakamiya K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Aug; 152(2):970. PubMed ID: 36050149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A context-based model to predict the intelligibility of sentences in non-stationary noises.
    van Schoonhoven J; Rhebergen KS; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Apr; 155(4):2849-2859. PubMed ID: 38682914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise.
    Desloge JG; Reed CM; Braida LD; Perez ZD; Delhorne LA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jul; 128(1):342-59. PubMed ID: 20649229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Erratum: The effect of age and hearing sensitivity at frequencies above 8 kHz on auditory stream segregation and speech perception [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152(1), 716-726 (2022)].
    Jain S; Narne VK; Nataraja NP; Madhukesh S; Kumar K; Moore BCJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2023 Nov; 154(5):3251. PubMed ID: 37975738
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The intensitive DL of tones: dependence of signal/masker ratio on tone level and on spectrum of added noise.
    Greenwood DD
    Hear Res; 1993 Feb; 65(1-2):1-39. PubMed ID: 8458743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.