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 *

482 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8153556)

  • 21. Intelligibility of speech in noise at high presentation levels: effects of hearing loss and frequency region.
    Summers V; Cord MT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1130-7. PubMed ID: 17672659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking.
    Wang D; Kjems U; Pedersen MS; Boldt JB; Lunner T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Apr; 125(4):2336-47. PubMed ID: 19354408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: Part I--laboratory tests.
    Wu YH; Bentler RA
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):22-34. PubMed ID: 19864954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Do adaptive frequency response (AFR) hearing aids reduce 'upward spread' of masking?
    Fabry DA; Leek MR; Walden BE; Cord M
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(3):318-25. PubMed ID: 8126656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Clinical evaluation of a new hearing aid anti-cardioid directivity pattern.
    Mueller HG; Weber J; Bellanova M
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Apr; 50(4):249-54. PubMed ID: 21271803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effects of noise source configuration on directional benefit using symmetric and asymmetric directional hearing aid fittings.
    Hornsby BW; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 17496669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids.
    Ricketts T; Henry P; Gnewikow D
    Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):424-39. PubMed ID: 14534412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect on the speech reception threshold in noise of the recovery time of the compressor in the high-frequency channel of a two-channel aid.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():82-91. PubMed ID: 8153569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Prediction of the intelligibility for speech in real-life background noises for subjects with normal hearing.
    Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
    Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):169-75. PubMed ID: 18490862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The benefit obtained from visually displayed text from an automatic speech recognizer during listening to speech presented in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Kessens JM; Vlaming MS; Houtgast T
    Ear Hear; 2008 Dec; 29(6):838-52. PubMed ID: 18633325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of extended-range frequency-response amplification in hearing aids.
    Forrester JI; Raffin MJ
    J Aud Res; 1982 Jan; 22(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 7187908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effect of spatial separation, extended bandwidth, and compression speed on intelligibility in a competing-speech task.
    Moore BC; Füllgrabe C; Stone MA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jul; 128(1):360-71. PubMed ID: 20649230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The dynamic range of speech, compression, and its effect on the speech reception threshold in stationary and interrupted noise.
    Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Dec; 126(6):3236-45. PubMed ID: 20000937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A psychophysical evaluation of spectral enhancement.
    DiGiovanni JJ; Nelson PB; Schlauch RS
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Oct; 48(5):1121-35. PubMed ID: 16411801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise.
    Ozimek E; Warzybok A; Kutzner D
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):444-54. PubMed ID: 20482292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Frequency selectivity and speech intelligibility in noise.
    Lyregaard PE
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1982; 15():113-22. PubMed ID: 6955919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The potential of onset enhancement for increased speech intelligibility in auditory prostheses.
    Koning R; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2569-81. PubMed ID: 23039450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.