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 *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7419804)

  • 21. Effects of noise and distortion on speech quality judgments in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC; Harvey LO
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1150-64. PubMed ID: 17672661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Perceptual consequences of different signal changes due to binaural noise reduction: do hearing loss and working memory capacity play a role?
    Neher T; Grimm G; Hohmann V
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(5):e213-27. PubMed ID: 25010636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. High-frequency amplification and sound quality in listeners with normal through moderate hearing loss.
    Ricketts TA; Dittberner AB; Johnson EE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Feb; 51(1):160-72. PubMed ID: 18230863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Influence of speaker gender on listener judgments of tracheoesophageal speech.
    Eadie TL; Doyle PC; Hansen K; Beaudin PG
    J Voice; 2008 Jan; 22(1):43-57. PubMed ID: 17055223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of release time in compression hearing aids: paired-comparison judgments of quality.
    Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Mackersie C; Hellman S; Levitt H
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1995 Dec; 98(6):3182-7. PubMed ID: 8550942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Comparison of the electroacoustic characteristics of five hearing aids.
    Moore BC; Stone MA; Alcántara JI
    Br J Audiol; 2001 Oct; 35(5):307-25. PubMed ID: 11824533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: paired-comparison judgments of quality.
    Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Hellman S; Levitt H
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Sep; 96(3):1471-8. PubMed ID: 7963011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Speech quality evaluation of a sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm with normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():175-85. PubMed ID: 26232529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Music preferences with hearing aids: effects of signal properties, compression settings, and listener characteristics.
    Croghan NB; Arehart KH; Kates JM
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(5):e170-84. PubMed ID: 25010635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Importance weighted audibility and the recognition of hearing aid-processed speech.
    Studebaker GA; Marincovich PJ
    Ear Hear; 1989 Apr; 10(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 2707499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Childhood hearing impairment: auditory and linguistic interactions during multidimensional speech processing.
    Jerger S; Martin R; Pearson DA; Dinh T
    J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Aug; 38(4):930-48. PubMed ID: 7474984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Measurement of speech quality as a tool to optimize the fitting of a hearing aid.
    Preminger JE; Van Tasell DJ
    J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Jun; 38(3):726-36. PubMed ID: 7674663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Dimensions of consonant perception in normal and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Walden BE; Montgomery AA
    J Speech Hear Res; 1975 Sep; 18(3):444-55. PubMed ID: 1186154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Perception of musical timbre by cochlear implant listeners: a multidimensional scaling study.
    Macherey O; Delpierre A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):426-36. PubMed ID: 23334356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Magnitude estimation of degraded speech quality by normal- and impaired-hearing listeners.
    Lawson GD; Chial MR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1982 Dec; 72(6):1781-7. PubMed ID: 7153425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.