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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

182 related items for PubMed ID: 16197279

  • 1. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility.
    Jenstad LM, Souza PE.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):651-67. PubMed ID: 16197279
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older adults.
    Jenstad LM, Souza PE.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Oct; 50(5):1123-38. PubMed ID: 17905900
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. The influence of attack time and release time on speech intelligibility. A study of the effects of AGC on normal hearing and hearing impaired subjects.
    Jerlvall LB, Lindblad AC.
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1978 Oct; (6):341-53. PubMed ID: 292147
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Understanding compression: modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids.
    Kates JM.
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):395-409. PubMed ID: 20225931
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Ranking hearing aid input-output functions for understanding low-, conversational-, and high-level speech in multitalker babble.
    Chung K, Killion MC, Christensen LA.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Apr; 50(2):304-22. PubMed ID: 17463231
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH, Humes LE, Amos NE, Strauser LE.
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Syllabic compression and speech intelligibility in hearing impaired listeners.
    Verschuure J, Dreschler WA, de Haan EH, van Cappellen M, Hammerschlag R, Maré MJ, Maas AJ, Hijmans AC.
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993 Jun; 38():92-100. PubMed ID: 8153570
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Design and evaluation of a two-channel compression hearing aid.
    Moore BC.
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987 Jun; 24(4):181-92. PubMed ID: 3430376
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. A psychophysical evaluation of spectral enhancement.
    DiGiovanni JJ, Nelson PB, Schlauch RS.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Oct; 48(5):1121-35. PubMed ID: 16411801
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. The effects of hearing aid compression parameters on the short-term dynamic range of continuous speech.
    Henning RL, Bentler RA.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Apr; 51(2):471-84. PubMed ID: 18367690
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing.
    Rudner M, Foo C, Rönnberg J, Lunner T.
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):879-92. PubMed ID: 17982373
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    Başkent D, Eiler CL, Edwards B.
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):370-80. PubMed ID: 17485986
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Multiband compression limiting for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Bustamante DK, Braida LD.
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987 Jun; 24(4):149-60. PubMed ID: 3430374
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Hybridizing conversational and clear speech to determine the degree of contribution of acoustic features to intelligibility.
    Kain A, Amano-Kusumoto A, Hosom JP.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Oct; 124(4):2308-19. PubMed ID: 19062869
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Perception of clear fricatives by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners.
    Maniwa K, Jongman A, Wade T.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1114-25. PubMed ID: 18247912
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Discriminability of the quality of amplitude-compressed speech.
    Nábĕlek IV.
    J Speech Hear Res; 1984 Dec; 27(4):571-7. PubMed ID: 6521465
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Vibrant soundbridge versus conventional hearing aid in sensorineural high-frequency hearing loss: a prospective study.
    Truy E, Philibert B, Vesson JF, Labassi S, Collet L.
    Otol Neurotol; 2008 Aug; 29(5):684-7. PubMed ID: 18434928
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Integrating the acoustics of running speech into the pure tone audiogram: a step from audibility to intelligibility and disability.
    Corthals P.
    Folia Phoniatr Logop; 2008 Aug; 60(1):25-32. PubMed ID: 18057908
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.