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 *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8290305)

  • 21. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment.
    Kollmeier B; Wesselkamp M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Oct; 102(4):2412-21. PubMed ID: 9348699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Talker intelligibility differences in cochlear implant listeners.
    Green T; Katiri S; Faulkner A; Rosen S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Jun; 121(6):EL223-9. PubMed ID: 17552573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Speech-in-noise measures: variable versus fixed speech and noise levels.
    Wilson RH; McArdle R
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):708-12. PubMed ID: 22640687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.
    Baer T; Moore BC; Gatehouse S
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):49-72. PubMed ID: 8263829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Bone-conducted speech: intelligibility functions and threshold force levels for spondees.
    Beattie RC; Smiarowski RA
    Am J Otol; 1981 Oct; 3(2):109-15. PubMed ID: 7304720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Development of a corpus of Mandarin sentences in babble with homogeneity optimized via psychometric evaluation.
    Xi X; Ching TY; Ji F; Zhao Y; Li JN; Seymour J; Hong MD; Chen AT; Dillon H
    Int J Audiol; 2012 May; 51(5):399-404. PubMed ID: 22201527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Enhancing speech intelligibility: interactions among context, modality, speech style, and masker.
    Van Engen KJ; Phelps JE; Smiljanic R; Chandrasekaran B
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2014 Oct; 57(5):1908-18. PubMed ID: 24687206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Speech intelligibility and passive, level-dependent earplugs.
    Norin JA; Emanuel DC; Letowski TR
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):642-9. PubMed ID: 21407078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Amplitude (vu and rms) and Temporal (msec) Measures of Two Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 Recordings.
    Wilson RH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Apr; 26(4):346-54. PubMed ID: 25879239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Intelligibility of interrupted and interleaved speech for normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implantees.
    Gnansia D; Pressnitzer D; Péan V; Meyer B; Lorenzi C
    Hear Res; 2010 Jun; 265(1-2):46-53. PubMed ID: 20197084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Evaluation of the sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm in normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 310():36-47. PubMed ID: 24495441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation?
    Hochmuth S; Jürgens T; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():23-34. PubMed ID: 26486466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Perception of clear fricatives by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners.
    Maniwa K; Jongman A; Wade T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1114-25. PubMed ID: 18247912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The Connected Speech Test version 3: audiovisual administration.
    Cox RM; Alexander GC; Gilmore C; Pusakulich KM
    Ear Hear; 1989 Feb; 10(1):29-32. PubMed ID: 2470629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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