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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8046148)

  • 21. An examination of speech reception thresholds measured in a simulated reverberant cafeteria environment.
    Best V; Keidser G; Buchholz JM; Freeston K
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54(10):682-90. PubMed ID: 25853616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Sentence perception in listening conditions having similar speech intelligibility indices.
    Gustafson SJ; Pittman AL
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):34-40. PubMed ID: 21047291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
    van den Tillaart-Haverkate M; de Ronde-Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517716844. PubMed ID: 28656807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. I.
    ter Keurs M; Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 May; 91(5):2872-80. PubMed ID: 1629480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Speech pattern hearing aids for the profoundly hearing impaired: speech perception and auditory abilities.
    Faulkner A; Ball V; Rosen S; Moore BC; Fourcin A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Apr; 91(4 Pt 1):2136-55. PubMed ID: 1597605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The role of first formant information in simulated electro-acoustic hearing.
    Verschuur C; Boland C; Frost E; Constable J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4279-89. PubMed ID: 23742378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Speech reception with different bilateral directional processing schemes: Influence of binaural hearing, audiometric asymmetry, and acoustic scenario.
    Neher T; Wagener KC; Latzel M
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():36-48. PubMed ID: 28783570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Evaluation of two algorithms for detecting human frequency-following responses to voice pitch.
    Jeng FC; Hu J; Dickman B; Lin CY; Lin CD; Wang CY; Chung HK; Li X
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):14-26. PubMed ID: 21047294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Predicting the effect of hearing loss and audibility on amplified speech reception in a multi-talker listening scenario.
    Woods WS; Kalluri S; Pentony S; Nooraei N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4268-78. PubMed ID: 23742377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. New perspectives on assessing amplification effects.
    Souza PE; Tremblay KL
    Trends Amplif; 2006 Sep; 10(3):119-43. PubMed ID: 16959734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Neural indices of phonemic discrimination and sentence-level speech intelligibility in quiet and noise: A P3 study.
    Koerner TK; Zhang Y; Nelson PB; Wang B; Zou H
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():58-67. PubMed ID: 28441570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal- and hearing-impaired children and adults.
    Stelmachowicz PG; Pittman AL; Hoover BM; Lewis DE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Oct; 110(4):2183-90. PubMed ID: 11681394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effects of contextual cues on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Kong YY; Donaldson G; Somarowthu A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 May; 137(5):2846-57. PubMed ID: 25994712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices.
    Bosman AJ; Mylanus EA; Hol MK; Snik AF
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Jul; 55(7):419-24. PubMed ID: 27176657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Improved speech reception and sound quality with the DUET2 audio processor for electric acoustic stimulation.
    Kleine Punte A; Mertens G; Cochet E; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2015; 135(10):1022-9. PubMed ID: 26073650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effects of whitening and peak-clipping on speech intelligibility in the presence of a competing message.
    Young LL; Goodman JT; Carhart R
    Audiology; 1979; 18(1):72-9. PubMed ID: 760726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.