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.
2. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation? Hochmuth S, Jürgens T, Brand T, Kollmeier B. Int J Audiol; 2015 May; 54 Suppl 2():23-34. PubMed ID: 26486466 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Benefits of knowing who, where, and when in multi-talker listening. Kitterick PT, Bailey PJ, Summerfield AQ. J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Apr; 127(4):2498-508. PubMed ID: 20370032 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Does it take older adults longer than younger adults to perceptually segregate a speech target from a background masker? Ben-David BM, Tse VY, Schneider BA. Hear Res; 2012 Aug; 290(1-2):55-63. PubMed ID: 22609772 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. Summers V, Molis MR. J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Apr; 47(2):245-56. PubMed ID: 15157127 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise. Zekveld AA, Rudner M, Johnsrude IS, Rönnberg J. J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep; 134(3):2225-34. PubMed ID: 23967952 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Contributions of talker characteristics and spatial location to auditory streaming. Allen K, Carlile S, Alais D. J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Mar; 123(3):1562-70. PubMed ID: 18345844 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Speech recognition in one- and two-talker maskers in school-age children and adults: Development of perceptual masking and glimpsing. Buss E, Leibold LJ, Porter HL, Grose JH. J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2650. PubMed ID: 28464682 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Binaural speech intelligibility in rooms with variations in spatial location of sources and modulation depth of noise interferers. Collin B, Lavandier M. J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Aug; 134(2):1146-59. PubMed ID: 23927114 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The influence of informational masking in reverberant, multi-talker environments. Westermann A, Buchholz JM. J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Aug; 138(2):584-93. PubMed ID: 26328677 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Psychometric functions for sentence recognition in sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noises. Shen Y, Manzano NK, Richards VM. J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):3613-24. PubMed ID: 26723318 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of fundamental-frequency and sentence-onset differences on speech-identification performance of young and older adults in a competing-talker background. Lee JH, Humes LE. J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1700-17. PubMed ID: 22978898 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Masked Speech Perception Thresholds in Infants, Children, and Adults. Leibold LJ, Yarnell Bonino A, Buss E. Ear Hear; 2016 Sep; 37(3):345-53. PubMed ID: 26783855 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S). Cameron S, Dillon H. Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):196-211. PubMed ID: 17496671 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]