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

314 related items for PubMed ID: 24437781

  • 1. A Danish open-set speech corpus for competing-speech studies.
    Nielsen JB, Dau T, Neher T.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):407-20. PubMed ID: 24437781
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Effects of interferer facing orientation on speech perception by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Strelcyk O, Pentony S, Kalluri S, Edwards B.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1419-32. PubMed ID: 24606279
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Phoneme recognition in vocoded maskers by normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners.
    Phatak SA, Grant KW.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):859-66. PubMed ID: 25096119
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
    Jansen S, Koning R, Wouters J, van Wieringen A.
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: II. Fluctuating noise.
    Smits C, Festen JM.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):3004-15. PubMed ID: 23654404
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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]

  • 7. Sentence intelligibility during segmental interruption and masking by speech-modulated noise: Effects of age and hearing loss.
    Fogerty D, Ahlstrom JB, Bologna WJ, Dubno JR.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jun; 137(6):3487-501. PubMed ID: 26093436
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. The effect of nearby maskers on speech intelligibility in reverberant, multi-talker environments.
    Westermann A, Buchholz JM.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):2214. PubMed ID: 28372143
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test.
    Zokoll MA, Fidan D, Türkyılmaz D, Hochmuth S, Ergenç İ, Sennaroğlu G, Kollmeier B.
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Mar; 54 Suppl 2():51-61. PubMed ID: 26443486
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Characterizing the Speech Reception Threshold in hearing-impaired listeners in relation to masker type and masker level.
    Rhebergen KS, Pool RE, Dreschler WA.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 24606285
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Detection threshold for sound distortion resulting from noise reduction in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Brons I, Dreschler WA, Houben R.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1375. PubMed ID: 25190410
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners' localization and spatial speech recognition abilities?
    Neher T, Laugesen S, Jensen NS, Kragelund L.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1542-58. PubMed ID: 21895093
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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]

  • 14. Benefits of Acoustic Beamforming for Solving the Cocktail Party Problem.
    Kidd G, Mason CR, Best V, Swaminathan J.
    Trends Hear; 2015 Jun 30; 19():. PubMed ID: 26126896
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation.
    Ohlenforst B, Zekveld AA, Lunner T, Wendt D, Naylor G, Wang Y, Versfeld NJ, Kramer SE.
    Hear Res; 2017 Aug 30; 351():68-79. PubMed ID: 28622894
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker.
    Koelewijn T, Zekveld AA, Festen JM, Kramer SE.
    Ear Hear; 2012 Aug 30; 33(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 21921797
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Development and evaluation of the British English coordinate response measure speech-in-noise test as an occupational hearing assessment tool.
    Semeraro HD, Rowan D, van Besouw RM, Allsopp AA.
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Oct 30; 56(10):749-758. PubMed ID: 28537138
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Effect of companding on speech recognition in quiet and noise for listeners with ANSD.
    Narne VK, Barman A, Deepthi M.
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Feb 30; 53(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 24237041
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise.
    Hochmuth S, Brand T, Zokoll MA, Castro FZ, Wardenga N, Kollmeier B.
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Jul 30; 51(7):536-44. PubMed ID: 22537033
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Danish reading span data from 283 hearing-aid users, including a sub-group analysis of their relationship to speech-in-noise performance.
    Borch Petersen E, Lunner T, Vestergaard MD, Sundewall Thorén E.
    Int J Audiol; 2016 Jul 30; 55(4):254-61. PubMed ID: 26836955
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 16.