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.
89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7895940)
1. Effect of peak clipping on speech recognition threshold. Crain TR; Van Tasell DJ Ear Hear; 1994 Dec; 15(6):443-53. PubMed ID: 7895940 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The effect of intensity perturbations on speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. van Schijndel NH; Houtgast T; Festen JM J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 May; 109(5 Pt 1):2202-10. PubMed ID: 11386571 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Subjective effects of peak clipping and compression limiting in normal and hearing-impaired children and adults. Stelmachowicz PG; Lewis DE; Hoover B; Keefe DH J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Jan; 105(1):412-22. PubMed ID: 9921667 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. Peters RW; Moore BC; Baer T J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Jan; 103(1):577-87. PubMed ID: 9440343 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of attention on the speech reception threshold and pupil response of people with impaired and normal hearing. Koelewijn T; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE Hear Res; 2017 Oct; 354():56-63. PubMed ID: 28869841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. van Buuren RA; Festen JM; Plomp R J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Feb; 38(1):211-21. PubMed ID: 7731212 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of the fitting parameters of a two-channel compression system on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in noise. Moore BC; Lynch C; Stone MA Br J Audiol; 1992 Dec; 26(6):369-79. PubMed ID: 1292821 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. A comparison of American Speech-Language Hearing Association guidelines for obtaining speech-recognition thresholds. Jahner JA; Schlauch RA; Doyle T Ear Hear; 1994 Aug; 15(4):324-9. PubMed ID: 7958531 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Moore BC; Johnson JS; Clark TM; Pluvinage V Ear Hear; 1992 Oct; 13(5):349-70. PubMed ID: 1487095 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]