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 *

67 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6521465)

  • 1. Discriminability of the quality of amplitude-compressed speech.
    Nábĕlek IV
    J Speech Hear Res; 1984 Dec; 27(4):571-7. PubMed ID: 6521465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The influence of attack time and release time on speech intelligibility. A study of the effects of AGC on normal hearing and hearing impaired subjects.
    Jerlvall LB; Lindblad AC
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1978; (6):341-53. PubMed ID: 292147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.
    Baer T; Moore BC; Gatehouse S
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):49-72. PubMed ID: 8263829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Bernstein JG; Grant KW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3358-72. PubMed ID: 19425676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking.
    Wang D; Kjems U; Pedersen MS; Boldt JB; Lunner T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Apr; 125(4):2336-47. PubMed ID: 19354408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss.
    Shi LF; Doherty KA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1328-40. PubMed ID: 18664685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners' performance on the connected speech test.
    Sherbecoe RL; Studebaker GA
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):71-88. PubMed ID: 12598814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Intelligibility of speech in noise at high presentation levels: effects of hearing loss and frequency region.
    Summers V; Cord MT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1130-7. PubMed ID: 17672659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Influence of high pass filtering on the intelligibility of amplitude-compressed speech.
    Vargo SW
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(3):163-7. PubMed ID: 528294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Estimates of basilar-membrane nonlinearity effects on masking of tones and speech.
    Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):2-17. PubMed ID: 17204895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility.
    Jenstad LM; Souza PE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):651-67. PubMed ID: 16197279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Consonant identification in quiet and in noise with the normal and the sensorineural hearing-impaired.
    Givens GD; Jacobs-Condit L
    J Aud Res; 1981 Oct; 21(4):279-85. PubMed ID: 7186504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The dynamic range of speech, compression, and its effect on the speech reception threshold in stationary and interrupted noise.
    Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Dec; 126(6):3236-45. PubMed ID: 20000937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Frequency selectivity and speech intelligibility in noise.
    Lyregaard PE
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1982; 15():113-22. PubMed ID: 6955919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of envelope discontinuities on perceptual restoration of amplitude-compressed speech.
    Başkent D; Eiler C; Edwards B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Jun; 125(6):3995-4005. PubMed ID: 19507981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Real-time multiband dynamic compression and noise reduction for binaural hearing aids.
    Kollmeier B; Peissig J; Hohmann V
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):82-94. PubMed ID: 8263832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Central masking effects on spondee threshold as a function of masker sensation level and masker sound pressure level.
    Martin FN; Digiovanni D
    J Am Audiol Soc; 1979; 4(4):141-6. PubMed ID: 422425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.