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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38990038)

  • 1. Learning effects in speech-in-noise tasks: Effect of masker modulation and masking release.
    Lie S; Zekveld AA; Smits C; Kramer SE; Versfeld NJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Jul; 156(1):341-349. PubMed ID: 38990038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 21921797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of age and hearing impairment on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral modulation.
    Hall JW; Buss E; Grose JH; Roush PA
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):340-8. PubMed ID: 22237164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Informational masking with speech-on-speech intelligibility: Pupil response and time-course of learning.
    Versfeld NJ; Lie S; Kramer SE; Zekveld AA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Apr; 149(4):2353. PubMed ID: 33940918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Characterizing the Speech Reception Threshold in hearing-impaired listeners in relation to masker type and masker level.
    Rhebergen KS; Pool RE; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 24606285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Rönnberg J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep; 134(3):2225-34. PubMed ID: 23967952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of priming on energetic and informational masking in a same-different task.
    Jones JA; Freyman RL
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(1):124-33. PubMed ID: 21841488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests.
    Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B; Brand T; Jürgens T
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():62-70. PubMed ID: 26097982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Effects of reverberation on speech recognition in stationary and modulated noise by school-aged children and young adults.
    Wróblewski M; Lewis DE; Valente DL; Stelmachowicz PG
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(6):731-44. PubMed ID: 22732772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. On the near non-existence of "pure" energetic masking release for speech.
    Stone MA; Moore BC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Apr; 135(4):1967-77. PubMed ID: 25234995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, part 2: improving test sensitivity for noise-induced hearing loss.
    Leensen MC; de Laat JA; Snik AF; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):835-48. PubMed ID: 21970351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of reverberation and masker fluctuations on binaural unmasking of speech.
    George EL; Festen JM; Goverts ST
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1581-91. PubMed ID: 22978887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Intelligibility of whispered speech in stationary and modulated noise maskers.
    Freyman RL; Griffin AM; Oxenham AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2514-23. PubMed ID: 23039445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: effect of masker type.
    Deroche ML; Culling JF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):EL465-70. PubMed ID: 24181992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Attenuation and distortion components of age-related hearing loss: Contributions to recognizing temporal-envelope filtered speech in modulated noise.
    Fogerty D; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2024 Jul; 156(1):93-106. PubMed ID: 38958486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The effect of reward on listening effort as reflected by the pupil dilation response.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():106-112. PubMed ID: 30096490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation?
    Hochmuth S; Jürgens T; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():23-34. PubMed ID: 26486466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.