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)

  • 21. Masked speech perception across the adult lifespan: Impact of age and hearing impairment.
    Goossens T; Vercammen C; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():109-124. PubMed ID: 27845259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Roles of the target and masker fundamental frequencies in voice segregation.
    Deroche ML; Culling JF; Chatterjee M; Limb CJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1225. PubMed ID: 25190396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise.
    Smits C; Theo Goverts S; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1693-706. PubMed ID: 23464039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech.
    Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Sep; 118(3 Pt 1):1274-7. PubMed ID: 16240788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice.
    Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Sep; 94(3 Pt 1):1295-300. PubMed ID: 8408970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Learning effect observed for the speech reception threshold in interrupted noise with normal hearing listeners.
    Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2008 Apr; 47(4):185-8. PubMed ID: 18389414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression.
    Grose JH; Griz S; Pacífico FA; Advíncula KP; Menezes DC
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Apr; 54(4):274-81. PubMed ID: 25630394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests.
    Francart T; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 21091261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise.
    Christiansen C; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1655-66. PubMed ID: 22978894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effects of attention on the speech reception threshold and pupil response of people with impaired and normal hearing.
    Koelewijn T; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2017 Oct; 354():56-63. PubMed ID: 28869841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effects of linguistic experience on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral masker modulation.
    Calandruccio L; Buss E; Hall JW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1335-43. PubMed ID: 24606272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    George EL; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Oct; 120(4):2295-311. PubMed ID: 17069325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Modulation masking and glimpsing of natural and vocoded speech during single-talker modulated noise: Effect of the modulation spectrum.
    Fogerty D; Xu J; Gibbs BE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Sep; 140(3):1800. PubMed ID: 27914381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. An Italian matrix sentence test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise.
    Puglisi GE; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Visentin C; Astolfi A; Prodi N; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():44-50. PubMed ID: 26371592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The influence of informational masking on speech perception and pupil response in adults with hearing impairment.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1596-606. PubMed ID: 24606294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Does it take older adults longer than younger adults to perceptually segregate a speech target from a background masker?
    Ben-David BM; Tse VY; Schneider BA
    Hear Res; 2012 Aug; 290(1-2):55-63. PubMed ID: 22609772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The effect of spatial separation in distance on the intelligibility of speech in rooms.
    Westermann A; Buchholz JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):757-67. PubMed ID: 25698010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.