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)

  • 21. Evaluation of an articulation-index based model for predicting the effects of adaptive frequency response hearing aids.
    Fabry DA; Van Tasell DJ
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Dec; 33(4):676-89. PubMed ID: 2273883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Auditory filter characteristics and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Dubno JR; Dirks DD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Apr; 85(4):1666-75. PubMed ID: 2708682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Payton KL; Uchanski RM; Braida LD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Mar; 95(3):1581-92. PubMed ID: 8176061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Quality judgments of hearing aid-processed speech and music by normal and otopathologic listeners.
    Punch JL
    J Am Audiol Soc; 1978; 3(4):179-88. PubMed ID: 659290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Speech-recognition difficulties of the hearing-impaired elderly: the contributions of audibility.
    Humes LE; Roberts L
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Dec; 33(4):726-35. PubMed ID: 2273886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise.
    Studebaker GA; Bisset JD; Van Ort DM; Hoffnung SU
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1982 Jul; 72(1):80-92. PubMed ID: 7108046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Byrne D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1986 Aug; 80(2):494-504. PubMed ID: 3745682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing.
    Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Oct; 88(4):1725-36. PubMed ID: 2262629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Consonant similarity judgments by normal and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Walden BE; Montgomery AA; Prosek RA; Schwartz DM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1980 Mar; 23(1):162-84. PubMed ID: 7442174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise.
    Dubno JR; Dirks DD; Morgan DE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1984 Jul; 76(1):87-96. PubMed ID: 6747116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Associations among frequency and temporal resolution and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Dubno JR; Dirks DD
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():23-9. PubMed ID: 2356732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Speech perception ability and psychophysical tuning curves in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Stelmachowicz PG; Jesteadt W; Gorga MP; Mott J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1985 Feb; 77(2):620-7. PubMed ID: 3973233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Rasch analysis of word identification and magnitude estimation scaling responses in measuring naive listeners' judgments of speech intelligibility of children with severe-to-profound hearing impairments.
    Beltyukova SA; Stone GM; Ellis LW
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1124-37. PubMed ID: 18664707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of speech recognition-in-noise and subjective communication assessment.
    Rowland JP; Dirks DD; Dubno JR; Bell TS
    Ear Hear; 1985; 6(6):291-6. PubMed ID: 4076552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Preference judgments of artificial processed and hearing-aid transduced speech.
    Versfeld NJ; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Sep; 106(3 Pt 1):1566-78. PubMed ID: 10489712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?
    Huber R; Bisitz T; Gerkmann T; Kiessling J; Meister H; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S55-S61. PubMed ID: 28112001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Speech identification difficulties of hearing-impaired elderly persons: the contributions of auditory processing deficits.
    Humes LE; Christopherson L
    J Speech Hear Res; 1991 Jun; 34(3):686-93. PubMed ID: 2072694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The contour test of loudness perception.
    Cox RM; Alexander GC; Taylor IM; Gray GA
    Ear Hear; 1997 Oct; 18(5):388-400. PubMed ID: 9360862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Development of materials for the clinical assessment of speech recognition: the speech sound pattern discrimination test.
    Bochner JH; Garrison WM; Sussman JE; Burkard RF
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2003 Aug; 46(4):889-900. PubMed ID: 12959467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.