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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8959597)

  • 1. Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech: results for listeners with hearing loss.
    Kozma-Spytek L; Kates JM; Revoile SG
    J Speech Hear Res; 1996 Dec; 39(6):1115-23. PubMed ID: 8959597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech.
    Kates JM; Kozma-Spytek L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Jun; 95(6):3586-94. PubMed ID: 8046148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived speech quality.
    Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):420-36. PubMed ID: 20440116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Sentence intelligibility during segmental interruption and masking by speech-modulated noise: Effects of age and hearing loss.
    Fogerty D; Ahlstrom JB; Bologna WJ; Dubno JR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jun; 137(6):3487-501. PubMed ID: 26093436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Speech quality evaluation of a sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm with normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():175-85. PubMed ID: 26232529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression.
    Arehart K; Souza P; Kates J; Lunner T; Pedersen MS
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(5):505-16. PubMed ID: 25985016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Masking release for hearing-impaired listeners: The effect of increased audibility through reduction of amplitude variability.
    Desloge JG; Reed CM; Braida LD; Perez ZD; D'Aquila LA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4452. PubMed ID: 28679277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Audiovisual asynchrony detection and speech intelligibility in noise with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing impairment.
    Başkent D; Bazo D
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):582-92. PubMed ID: 21389856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Völker C; Warzybok A; Ernst SM
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peaks in the frequency response of hearing aids: evaluation of the effects on speech intelligibility and sound quality.
    van Buuren RA; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Speech Hear Res; 1996 Apr; 39(2):239-50. PubMed ID: 8729914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sound Quality Effects of an Adaptive Nonlinear Frequency Compression Processor with Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Glista D; Hawkins M; Vaisberg JM; Pourmand N; Parsa V; Scollie S
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019; 30(7):552-563. PubMed ID: 30395533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Detection threshold for sound distortion resulting from noise reduction in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1375. PubMed ID: 25190410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of interferer facing orientation on speech perception by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Strelcyk O; Pentony S; Kalluri S; Edwards B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1419-32. PubMed ID: 24606279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of the NAL Dynamic Conversations Test in older listeners with hearing loss.
    Best V; Keidser G; Freeston K; Buchholz JM
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):221-229. PubMed ID: 28826285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How directional microphones affect speech recognition, listening effort and localisation for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Dec; 56(12):909-918. PubMed ID: 28738747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Multichannel compression hearing aids: effect of channel bandwidth on consonant and vowel identification by hearing-impaired listeners.
    Strelcyk O; Li N; Rodriguez J; Kalluri S; Edwards B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1598-606. PubMed ID: 23464029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.