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 *

82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7300278)

  • 1. Pairwise listener preferences in hearing aid evaluation.
    Punch JL; Parker CA
    J Speech Hear Res; 1981 Sep; 24(3):366-74. PubMed ID: 7300278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Listener-assessed intelligibility of hearing aid-processed speech.
    Punch JL; Howard MT
    J Am Aud Soc; 1978; 4(2):69-76. PubMed ID: 738919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Low-frequency response of hearing aids and judgments of aided speech quality.
    Punch JL; Beck EL
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1980 Aug; 45(3):325-35. PubMed ID: 7412226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and paired-comparison judgements of speech intelligibility by older listeners.
    Purdy SC; Pavlovic CV
    Audiology; 1992; 31(5):254-71. PubMed ID: 1482505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression.
    Arehart K; Souza P; Kates J; Lunner T; Pedersen MS
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(5):505-16. PubMed ID: 25985016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons.
    McDaniel DM; Cox RM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1992 Jun; 35(3):686-93. PubMed ID: 1608261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise.
    Studebaker GA; Bisset JD; Van Ort DM; Hoffnung SU
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1982 Jul; 72(1):80-92. PubMed ID: 7108046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quality judgments of hearing aid-processed speech and music by normal and otopathologic listeners.
    Punch JL
    J Am Audiol Soc; 1978; 3(4):179-88. PubMed ID: 659290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Multidimensional scaling of quality judgments of speech signals processed by hearing aids.
    Punch JL; Montgomery AA; Schwartz DM; Walden BE; Prosek RA; Howard MT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1980 Aug; 68(2):458-66. PubMed ID: 7419804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Using Objective Metrics to Measure Hearing Aid Performance.
    Kates JM; Arehart KH; Anderson MC; Kumar Muralimanohar R; Harvey LO
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(6):1165-1175. PubMed ID: 29554034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Völker C; Warzybok A; Ernst SM
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners.
    Cox RM; Alexander GC; Rivera IM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1991 Aug; 34(4):904-15. PubMed ID: 1956197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons.
    Cox RM; McDaniel DM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1989 Jun; 32(2):347-52. PubMed ID: 2739387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Perception of temporally processed speech by listeners with hearing impairment.
    Calandruccio L; Doherty KA; Carney LH; Kikkeri HN
    Ear Hear; 2007 Aug; 28(4):512-23. PubMed ID: 17609613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peaks in the frequency response of hearing aids: evaluation of the effects on speech intelligibility and sound quality.
    van Buuren RA; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Speech Hear Res; 1996 Apr; 39(2):239-50. PubMed ID: 8729914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: application to hearing aid selection.
    Cox RM; McDaniel DM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1984 Sep; 76(3):758-66. PubMed ID: 6491048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.