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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6665513)

  • 1. Sentence identification in noise and hearing-handicap questionnaires.
    Tyler RS; Smith PA
    Scand Audiol; 1983; 12(4):285-92. PubMed ID: 6665513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The role of sequential stream segregation and frequency selectivity in the perception of simultaneous sentences by listeners with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Mackersie CL; Prida TL; Stiles D
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2001 Feb; 44(1):19-28. PubMed ID: 11218102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The performance-perceptual test and its relationship to unaided reported handicap.
    Saunders GH; Forsline A; Fausti SA
    Ear Hear; 2004 Apr; 25(2):117-26. PubMed ID: 15064656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A model for the speech-reception threshold in noise without and with a hearing aid.
    Plomp R; Duquesnoy AJ
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1982; 15():95-111. PubMed ID: 6955931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Göttingen sentence in noise for different audiogram classes].
    Thiele C; Sukowksi H; Lenarz T; Lesinski-Schiedat A
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2012 Dec; 91(12):782-8. PubMed ID: 22234848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects.
    Hagerman B
    Int J Audiol; 2002 Sep; 41(6):321-9. PubMed ID: 12353604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An evaluation of speech audiometry by bone conduction in hearing-impaired adults.
    Karlsen EA; Goetzinger CP
    J Aud Res; 1980 Apr; 20(2):89-95. PubMed ID: 7345063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Killion MC; Niquette PA; Gudmundsen GI; Revit LJ; Banerjee S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Oct; 116(4 Pt 1):2395-405. PubMed ID: 15532670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram.
    Smoorenburg GF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Jan; 91(1):421-37. PubMed ID: 1737889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Recognition of digits in different types of noise by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Smits C; Houtgast T
    Int J Audiol; 2007 Mar; 46(3):134-44. PubMed ID: 17365067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing.
    Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Oct; 88(4):1725-36. PubMed ID: 2262629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Speech recognition and just-follow-conversation tasks for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners with different maskers.
    Larsby B; Arlinger S
    Audiology; 1994; 33(3):165-76. PubMed ID: 8042937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Comparison of hearing thresholds obtained using pure-tone behavioral audiometry, the Cantonese Hearing in Noise Test (CHINT) and cortical evoked response audiometry.
    Wong LL; Cheung C; Wong EC
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2008 Jun; 128(6):654-60. PubMed ID: 18568500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment.
    Bosman AJ; Smoorenburg GF
    Audiology; 1995; 34(5):260-84. PubMed ID: 8837785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, part 1: test evaluation for noise-induced hearing loss identification.
    Leensen MC; de Laat JA; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):823-34. PubMed ID: 21988504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Auditory detection, discrimination and speech processing in ageing, noise-sensitive and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Abel SM; Krever EM; Alberti PW
    Scand Audiol; 1990; 19(1):43-54. PubMed ID: 2336540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing.
    Rudner M; Foo C; Rönnberg J; Lunner T
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):879-92. PubMed ID: 17982373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Validation of a French-Language Version of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire, Cluster Analysis and Comparison with the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale.
    Moulin A; Richard C
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(4):412-23. PubMed ID: 26808287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.