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 *

176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8816083)

  • 41. Differential effects of speaker and vowel variability on fricative perception.
    Johnson K
    Lang Speech; 1991; 34 ( Pt 3)():265-79. PubMed ID: 1843527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Acoustic and perceptual study of Cantonese tones produced by profoundly hearing-impaired adolescents.
    Khouw E; Ciocca V
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):243-55. PubMed ID: 16672793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Difficulties Experienced by Older Listeners in Utilizing Voice Cues for Speaker Discrimination.
    Zaltz Y; Kishon-Rabin L
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():797422. PubMed ID: 35310278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Identification of children's gender and age by listeners.
    Amir O; Engel M; Shabtai E; Amir N
    J Voice; 2012 May; 26(3):313-21. PubMed ID: 21840167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Discrimination of speaker sex and size when glottal-pulse rate and vocal-tract length are controlled.
    Smith DR; Walters TC; Patterson RD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Dec; 122(6):3628-39. PubMed ID: 18247770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Acoustic and perceptual cues to contrastive stress in dysarthria.
    Patel R; Campellone P
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2009 Feb; 52(1):206-22. PubMed ID: 18695019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Associations Between Speaking Fundamental Frequency, Vowel Formant Frequencies, and Listener Perceptions of Speaker Gender and Vocal Femininity-Masculinity.
    Leung Y; Oates J; Chan SP; Papp V
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2021 Jul; 64(7):2600-2622. PubMed ID: 34232704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The influence of speaker and listener variables on intelligibility of dysarthric speech.
    Patel R; Usher N; Kember H; Russell S; Laures-Gore J
    J Commun Disord; 2014; 51():13-8. PubMed ID: 25113966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Effect of fundamental frequency on judgments of electrolaryngeal speech.
    Nagle KF; Eadie TL; Wright DR; Sumida YA
    Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2012 May; 21(2):154-66. PubMed ID: 22355005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. The effect of perceptual training on inexperienced listeners' judgments of dysphonic voice.
    Eadie TL; Baylor CR
    J Voice; 2006 Dec; 20(4):527-44. PubMed ID: 16324823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Inferring speaker attributes in adductor spasmodic dysphonia: ratings from unfamiliar listeners.
    Isetti D; Xuereb L; Eadie TL
    Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2014 May; 23(2):134-45. PubMed ID: 24686338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [Identification of speaker characteristics by listener groups of different ages and expertise].
    Thiele JM; Schade G
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2020 Dec; 99(12):879-886. PubMed ID: 33137835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Speaker discrimination performance for "easy" versus "hard" voices in style-matched and -mismatched speech.
    Afshan A; Kreiman J; Alwan A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Feb; 151(2):1393. PubMed ID: 35232083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Recognition of speaker age from selected acoustic features as perceived by normal young and older listeners.
    Jacques RD; Rastatter MP
    Folia Phoniatr (Basel); 1990; 42(3):118-24. PubMed ID: 2379899
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Cognitive maturation and the use of pitch and rate information in making similarity judgments of a single talker.
    Petrini K; Tagliapietra S
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Apr; 51(2):485-501. PubMed ID: 18367691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Analyzing nonverbal listener responses using parallel recordings of multiple listeners.
    de Kok I; Heylen D
    Cogn Process; 2012 Oct; 13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):499-506. PubMed ID: 22350325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Comparison between perceptual assessments of nasality and nasalance scores.
    Brunnegård K; Lohmander A; van Doorn J
    Int J Lang Commun Disord; 2012; 47(5):556-66. PubMed ID: 22938066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Listening to different speakers: on the time-course of perceptual compensation for vocal-tract characteristics.
    Sjerps MJ; Mitterer H; McQueen JM
    Neuropsychologia; 2011 Dec; 49(14):3831-46. PubMed ID: 22001313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Cepstral analysis of hypokinetic and ataxic voices: correlations with perceptual and other acoustic measures.
    Jannetts S; Lowit A
    J Voice; 2014 Nov; 28(6):673-80. PubMed ID: 24836365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Perception of spasmodic dysphonia speech in background noise.
    McColl D; McCaffrey P
    Percept Mot Skills; 2006 Oct; 103(2):629-35. PubMed ID: 17165426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.