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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9288475)

  • 1. Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating.
    Eisenberg LS; Dirks DD; Gornbein JA
    Ear Hear; 1997 Aug; 18(4):294-306. PubMed ID: 9288475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reliability and sensitivity of paired comparisons and category rating in children.
    Eisenberg LS; Dirks DD
    J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Oct; 38(5):1157-67. PubMed ID: 8558884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Subjective judgements of clarity and intelligibility for filtered stimuli with equivalent speech intelligibility index predictions.
    Eisenberg LS; Dirks DD; Takayanagi S; Martinez AS
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1998 Apr; 41(2):327-39. PubMed ID: 9570586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners' performance on the connected speech test.
    Sherbecoe RL; Studebaker GA
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):71-88. PubMed ID: 12598814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and paired-comparison judgements of speech intelligibility by older listeners.
    Purdy SC; Pavlovic CV
    Audiology; 1992; 31(5):254-71. PubMed ID: 1482505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Listener-assessed intelligibility of hearing aid-processed speech.
    Punch JL; Howard MT
    J Am Aud Soc; 1978; 4(2):69-76. PubMed ID: 738919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Hearing aid quality judgments in reverberant and nonreverberant environments using a magnitude estimation procedure.
    Harris RW; Goldstein DP
    Audiology; 1985; 24(1):32-43. PubMed ID: 3977782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Speech recognition and the Articulation Index for normal and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Kamm CA; Dirks DD; Bell TS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1985 Jan; 77(1):281-8. PubMed ID: 3973220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Subjective effects of peak clipping and compression limiting in normal and hearing-impaired children and adults.
    Stelmachowicz PG; Lewis DE; Hoover B; Keefe DH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Jan; 105(1):412-22. PubMed ID: 9921667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. II: Articulation index predictions.
    Dubno JR; Dirks DD; Schaefer AB
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Jan; 85(1):355-64. PubMed ID: 2921418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification.
    Boike KT; Souza PE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2000 Apr; 43(2):456-68. PubMed ID: 10757696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Case-study analysis of various field study measures.
    Preminger JE; Cunningham DR
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2003; 14(1):39-55. PubMed ID: 12833927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech-clarity judgments of hearing-aid-processed speech in noise: differing polar patterns and acoustic environments.
    Amlani AM; Rakerd B; Punch JL
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Jun; 45(6):319-30. PubMed ID: 16777778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss.
    Shi LF; Doherty KA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1328-40. PubMed ID: 18664685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 hearing aid fitting methods.
    Moore BC; Sęk A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 22878351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.