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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8326067)

  • 1. Performance-intensity functions at absolute and masked thresholds.
    Studebaker GA; Gilmore C; Sherbecoe RL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Jun; 93(6):3418-21. PubMed ID: 8326067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Estimates of basilar-membrane nonlinearity effects on masking of tones and speech.
    Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):2-17. PubMed ID: 17204895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing.
    Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Jun; 111(6):2897-907. PubMed ID: 12083223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels.
    Studebaker GA; Sherbecoe RL; McDaniel DM; Gwaltney CA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Apr; 105(4):2431-44. PubMed ID: 10212424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Minimal upward spread of masking: correlations with speech and auditory brainstem response masked thresholds.
    Klein AJ; Dubno JR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Jun; 93(6):3422-30. PubMed ID: 8326068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Word recognition in noise at higher-than-normal levels: decreases in scores and increases in masking.
    Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Aug; 118(2):914-22. PubMed ID: 16158647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of noise spectrum on speech recognition performance-intensity functions.
    Studebaker GA; Taylor R; Sherbecoe RL
    J Speech Hear Res; 1994 Apr; 37(2):439-48. PubMed ID: 8028326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Native and Non-native Speech Perception by Hearing-Impaired Listeners in Noise- and Speech Maskers.
    Kilman L; Zekveld A; Hällgren M; Rönnberg J
    Trends Hear; 2015 Apr; 19():. PubMed ID: 25910504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners.
    Dubno JR; Schaefer AB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Apr; 91(4 Pt 1):2110-21. PubMed ID: 1597602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Speech-in-noise perception in unilateral hearing loss: Relation to pure-tone thresholds and brainstem plasticity.
    Vannson N; James CJ; Fraysse B; Lescure B; Strelnikov K; Deguine O; Barone P; Marx M
    Neuropsychologia; 2017 Jul; 102():135-143. PubMed ID: 28623107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Audibility-index functions for the connected speech test.
    Sherbecoe RL; Studebaker GA
    Ear Hear; 2002 Oct; 23(5):385-98. PubMed ID: 12411772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Acoustic echoplanar scanner noise and pure tone hearing thresholds: the effects of sequence repetition times and acoustic noise rates.
    Ulmer JL; Biswal BB; Mark LP; Mathews VP; Prost RW; Millen SJ; Garman JN; Horzewski D
    J Comput Assist Tomogr; 1998; 22(3):480-6. PubMed ID: 9606392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effects of noise exposure and musical training on suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise.
    Yeend I; Beach EF; Sharma M; Dillon H
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():224-236. PubMed ID: 28780178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Two-tone auditory suppression in younger and older normal-hearing adults and its relationship to speech perception in noise.
    Sommers MS; Gehr SE
    Hear Res; 2010 Jun; 264(1-2):56-62. PubMed ID: 20006694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Recognition of nonsense syllables by hearing-impaired listeners and by noise-masked normal hearers.
    Humes LE; Dirks DD; Bell TS; Kincaid GE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1987 Mar; 81(3):765-73. PubMed ID: 3584685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Benefits of amplification for speech recognition in background noise.
    Turner CW; Henry BA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Oct; 112(4):1675-80. PubMed ID: 12398472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Effect of Stimulus Audibility on the Relationship between Pure-Tone Average and Speech Recognition in Noise Ability.
    Vermiglio AJ; Soli SD; Freed DJ; Fang X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Mar; 31(3):224-232. PubMed ID: 31274071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.