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 *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7462459)

  • 21. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):498-510. PubMed ID: 21233711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Development and evaluation of the British English coordinate response measure speech-in-noise test as an occupational hearing assessment tool.
    Semeraro HD; Rowan D; van Besouw RM; Allsopp AA
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Oct; 56(10):749-758. PubMed ID: 28537138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. An Italian matrix sentence test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise.
    Puglisi GE; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Visentin C; Astolfi A; Prodi N; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():44-50. PubMed ID: 26371592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effects of room acoustics on the intelligibility of speech in classrooms for young children.
    Yang W; Bradley JS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Feb; 125(2):922-33. PubMed ID: 19206869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.
    Nilsson M; Soli SD; Sullivan JA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Feb; 95(2):1085-99. PubMed ID: 8132902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Payton KL; Uchanski RM; Braida LD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Mar; 95(3):1581-92. PubMed ID: 8176061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test.
    Zokoll MA; Fidan D; Türkyılmaz D; Hochmuth S; Ergenç İ; Sennaroğlu G; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():51-61. PubMed ID: 26443486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The Just-Meaningful Difference in Speech-to-Noise Ratio.
    McShefferty D; Whitmer WM; Akeroyd MA
    Trends Hear; 2016 Feb; 20():. PubMed ID: 26834121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Prediction of the influence of reverberation on binaural speech intelligibility in noise and in quiet.
    Rennies J; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2999-3012. PubMed ID: 22087928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing.
    Strelcyk O; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3328-45. PubMed ID: 19425674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners.
    Duquesnoy AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1983 Oct; 74(4):1136-44. PubMed ID: 6643835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test.
    Warzybok A; Zokoll M; Wardenga N; Ozimek E; Boboshko M; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():35-43. PubMed ID: 25843088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Reverberation time and maximum background-noise level for classrooms from a comparative study of speech intelligibility metrics.
    Bistafa SR; Bradley JS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Feb; 107(2):861-75. PubMed ID: 10687696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Perceived listening effort and speech intelligibility in reverberation and noise for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Schepker H; Haeder K; Rennies J; Holube I
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Dec; 55(12):738-747. PubMed ID: 27627181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Characterizing the Speech Reception Threshold in hearing-impaired listeners in relation to masker type and masker level.
    Rhebergen KS; Pool RE; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 24606285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners.
    Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Jan; 111(1 Pt 1):401-8. PubMed ID: 11831813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Modeling speech intelligibility in quiet and noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Rhebergen KS; Lyzenga J; Dreschler WA; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Mar; 127(3):1570-83. PubMed ID: 20329857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Clinical study of speech understanding in noise].
    Tremblay C; Picard M; Barbarosie T; Banville R
    Audiology; 1991; 30(4):212-40. PubMed ID: 1755750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.