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.
106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 738919)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Effects of transient noise reduction algorithms on speech intelligibility and ratings of hearing aid users. DiGiovanni JJ; Davlin EA; Nagaraj NK Am J Audiol; 2011 Dec; 20(2):140-50. PubMed ID: 21940982 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Effects of noise suppression on intelligibility: experts' opinions and naive normal-hearing listeners' performance. Hilkhuysen GL; Gaubitch N; Huckvale M J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Apr; 56(2):404-15. PubMed ID: 23090965 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss. Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort. Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 22874643 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners. Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Variability of Electrolaryngeal Speech Intelligibility in Multitalker Babble. Cox SR; McNicholl K; Shadle CH; Chen WR Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2020 Nov; 29(4):2012-2022. PubMed ID: 32870708 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm in normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners. Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 310():36-47. PubMed ID: 24495441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Talker Versus Dialect Effects on Speech Intelligibility: A Symmetrical Study. McCloy DR; Wright RA; Souza PE Lang Speech; 2015 Sep; 58(Pt 3):371-86. PubMed ID: 26529902 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants. Başkent D; Eiler CL; Edwards B Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):370-80. PubMed ID: 17485986 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]