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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 464895)

  • 41. Binaural noise-reduction hearing aid scheme with real-time processing in the frequency domain.
    Kollmeier B; Peissig J; Hohmann V
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():28-38. PubMed ID: 8153562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Improvements in intelligibility of noisy reverberant speech using a binaural subband adaptive noise-cancellation processing scheme.
    Shields PW; Campbell DR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Dec; 110(6):3232-42. PubMed ID: 11785824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Individual differences in speech recognition ability: implications for hearing aid selection.
    Crandell CC
    Ear Hear; 1991 Dec; 12(6 Suppl):100S-108S. PubMed ID: 1794636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. [Evaluation of hearing improvement due to hearing aids].
    Welzl-Müller K; Sattler K
    HNO; 1985 Jun; 33(6):275-8. PubMed ID: 4030411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Effects of Varying Reverberation on Music Perception for Young Normal-Hearing and Old Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Reinhart PN; Souza PE
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216517750706. PubMed ID: 29320944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Cortical Characterization of Reverberation Time in Reverberant Speech.
    Luo C; Pan C; Zheng D; Chen F
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2020 Jul; 2020():3314-3317. PubMed ID: 33018713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification.
    Boike KT; Souza PE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2000 Apr; 43(2):456-68. PubMed ID: 10757696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Prediction of benefit from linear hearing aids in nonreverberant listening environments.
    Cox RM; Alexander GC
    Ear Hear; 1993 Aug; 14(4):275-84. PubMed ID: 8405731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults.
    Neuman AC; Wroblewski M; Hajicek J; Rubinstein A
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):336-44. PubMed ID: 20215967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived speech quality.
    Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):420-36. PubMed ID: 20440116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Tolerable hearing aid delays. II. Estimation of limits imposed during speech production.
    Stone MA; Moore BC
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):325-38. PubMed ID: 12195175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Room reverberation effects in hearing aid feedback cancellation.
    Kates JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Jan; 109(1):367-78. PubMed ID: 11206165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Effect of two-microphone noise reduction on speech recognition by normal-hearing listeners.
    Schwander T; Levitt H
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):87-92. PubMed ID: 3430393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating.
    Eisenberg LS; Dirks DD; Gornbein JA
    Ear Hear; 1997 Aug; 18(4):294-306. PubMed ID: 9288475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. An experimental comparison of four hearing aid prescription methods.
    Sullivan JA; Levitt H; Hwang JY; Hennessey AM
    Ear Hear; 1988 Feb; 9(1):22-32. PubMed ID: 3342941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Performance with an adaptive frequency response hearing aid in a sample of elderly hearing-impaired listeners.
    Gordon-Salant S; Sherlock LP
    Ear Hear; 1992 Aug; 13(4):255-62. PubMed ID: 1397768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. An objective measure for selecting microphone modes in OMNI/DIR hearing aid circuits.
    Grant KW; Elhilali M; Shamma SA; Walden BE; Surr RK; Cord MT; Summers V
    Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):199-213. PubMed ID: 18595186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Speech discrimination with an 8-channel compression hearing aid and conventional aids in background of speech-band noise.
    Yund EW; Simon HJ; Efron R
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):161-80. PubMed ID: 3430375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Evaluation of an articulation-index based model for predicting the effects of adaptive frequency response hearing aids.
    Fabry DA; Van Tasell DJ
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Dec; 33(4):676-89. PubMed ID: 2273883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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