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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9570586)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Speech Intelligibility as a Cue for Acceptable Noise Levels.
    Recker KL; Micheyl C
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(4):465-474. PubMed ID: 28169839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Intelligibility and Clarity of Reverberant Speech: Effects of Wide Dynamic Range Compression Release Time and Working Memory.
    Reinhart PN; Souza PE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2016 Dec; 59(6):1543-1554. PubMed ID: 27997667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Modeling speech intelligibility in quiet and noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Rhebergen KS; Lyzenga J; Dreschler WA; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Mar; 127(3):1570-83. PubMed ID: 20329857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests.
    Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B; Brand T; Jürgens T
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():62-70. PubMed ID: 26097982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):498-510. PubMed ID: 21233711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Matrix sentence intelligibility prediction using an automatic speech recognition system.
    Schädler MR; Warzybok A; Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():100-7. PubMed ID: 26383042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise.
    Pals C; Sarampalis A; van Dijk M; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 29757801
    [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. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 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. Prediction of speech intelligibility in spatial noise and reverberation for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Beutelmann R; Brand T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Jul; 120(1):331-42. PubMed ID: 16875230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of noise and filtering on the intelligibility of speech produced during simultaneous communication.
    MacKenzie DJ; Schiavetti N; Whitehead RL; Metz DE
    J Commun Disord; 2004; 37(6):505-15. PubMed ID: 15450438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Speech intelligibility assessment in a helium environment. II. The speech intelligibility index.
    Mendel LL; Hamill BW; Hendrix JE; Crepeau LJ; Pelton JD; Miley MD; Kadlec EE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Sep; 104(3 Pt 1):1609-15. PubMed ID: 9745744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.
    Baer T; Moore BC; Gatehouse S
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):49-72. PubMed ID: 8263829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.