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

158 related items for PubMed ID: 23716258

  • 1. Energetic and informational masking in a simulated restaurant environment.
    Culling JF.
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2013; 787():511-8. PubMed ID: 23716258
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Speech intelligibility in virtual restaurants.
    Culling JF.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Oct; 140(4):2418. PubMed ID: 27794329
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. The role of head-induced interaural time and level differences in the speech reception threshold for multiple interfering sound sources.
    Culling JF, Hawley ML, Litovsky RY.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Aug; 116(2):1057-65. PubMed ID: 15376672
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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]

  • 6. Binaural prediction of speech intelligibility in reverberant rooms with multiple noise sources.
    Lavandier M, Jelfs S, Culling JF, Watkins AJ, Raimond AP, Makin SJ.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Jan; 131(1):218-31. PubMed ID: 22280586
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Prediction of the intelligibility for speech in real-life background noises for subjects with normal hearing.
    Rhebergen KS, Versfeld NJ, Dreschler WA.
    Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):169-75. PubMed ID: 18490862
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Speech segregation in rooms: monaural, binaural, and interacting effects of reverberation on target and interferer.
    Lavandier M, Culling JF.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Apr; 123(4):2237-48. PubMed ID: 18397029
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test.
    Cameron S, Dillon H, Newall P.
    Ear Hear; 2006 Feb; 27(1):30-42. PubMed ID: 16446563
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. The effect of room acoustical parameters on speech reception thresholds and spatial release from masking.
    Biberger T, Ewert SD.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Oct; 146(4):2188. PubMed ID: 31671969
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. The role of fundamental frequency contours in the perception of speech against interfering speech.
    Binns C, Culling JF.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Sep; 122(3):1765. PubMed ID: 17927436
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Effect of masker type and age on speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in children and adults.
    Johnstone PM, Litovsky RY.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Oct; 120(4):2177-89. PubMed ID: 17069314
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices.
    Culling JF, Hodder KI, Toh CY.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Nov; 114(5):2871-6. PubMed ID: 14650021
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The effect of language, spatial factors, masker type and memory span on speech-in-noise thresholds in sequential bilingual children.
    MacCutcheon D, Pausch F, Fels J, Ljung R.
    Scand J Psychol; 2018 Dec; 59(6):567-577. PubMed ID: 30137681
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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 Dec; 54 Suppl 2():62-70. PubMed ID: 26097982
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Microscopic prediction of speech intelligibility in spatially distributed speech-shaped noise for normal-hearing listeners.
    Geravanchizadeh M, Fallah A.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):4004-15. PubMed ID: 26723354
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: effect of location and type of interferer.
    Hawley ML, Litovsky RY, Culling JF.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Feb; 115(2):833-43. PubMed ID: 15000195
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Voice segregation by difference in fundamental frequency: effect of masker type.
    Deroche ML, Culling JF.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):EL465-70. PubMed ID: 24181992
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Spatial Release From Masking in Simulated Cochlear Implant Users With and Without Access to Low-Frequency Acoustic Hearing.
    Williges B, Dietz M, Hohmann V, Jürgens T.
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec 30; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721918
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Listening through hearing aids affects spatial perception and speech intelligibility in normal-hearing listeners.
    Cubick J, Buchholz JM, Best V, Lavandier M, Dau T.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Nov 30; 144(5):2896. PubMed ID: 30522291
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.