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

179 related items for PubMed ID: 24606308

  • 21. Adaptation of the STARR test for adult Italian population: A speech test for a realistic estimate in real-life listening conditions.
    Dincer D'Alessandro H, Ballantyne D, De Seta E, Musacchio A, Mancini P.
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(4):262-7. PubMed ID: 26795710
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. 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]

  • 23. Speech reception with different bilateral directional processing schemes: Influence of binaural hearing, audiometric asymmetry, and acoustic scenario.
    Neher T, Wagener KC, Latzel M.
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():36-48. PubMed ID: 28783570
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing.
    Dubno JR, Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Jun; 111(6):2897-907. PubMed ID: 12083223
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise.
    Smits C, Theo Goverts S, Festen JM.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1693-706. PubMed ID: 23464039
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. 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]

  • 28. Recognition of speech in noise after application of time-frequency masks: dependence on frequency and threshold parameters.
    Sinex DG.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2390-6. PubMed ID: 23556604
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. How repetition influences speech understanding by younger, middle-aged and older adults.
    Helfer KS, Freyman RL, Merchant GR.
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Sep; 57(9):695-702. PubMed ID: 29801416
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Effects of inherent envelope fluctuations in forward maskers for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Svec A, Dubno JR, Nelson PB.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1336-43. PubMed ID: 25786946
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
    Zamaninezhad L, Hohmann V, Büchner A, Schädler MR, Jürgens T.
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. The role of segmentation difficulties in speech-in-speech understanding in older and hearing-impaired adults.
    Woodfield A, Akeroyd MA.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jul; 128(1):EL26-31. PubMed ID: 20649185
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test.
    Warzybok A, Zokoll M, Wardenga N, Ozimek E, Boboshko M, Kollmeier B.
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Jul; 54 Suppl 2():35-43. PubMed ID: 25843088
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. An Italian matrix sentence test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise.
    Puglisi GE, Warzybok A, Hochmuth S, Visentin C, Astolfi A, Prodi N, Kollmeier B.
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Jul; 54 Suppl 2():44-50. PubMed ID: 26371592
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. 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]

  • 37. 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]

  • 38. The importance of interaural time differences and level differences in spatial release from masking.
    Glyde H, Buchholz JM, Dillon H, Cameron S, Hickson L.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Aug; 134(2):EL147-52. PubMed ID: 23927217
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Native and Non-native Speech Perception by Hearing-Impaired Listeners in Noise- and Speech Maskers.
    Kilman L, Zekveld A, Hällgren M, Rönnberg J.
    Trends Hear; 2015 Apr 24; 19():. PubMed ID: 25910504
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Normal-hearing English-as-a-second-language listeners' recognition of English words in competing signals.
    Shi LF.
    Int J Audiol; 2009 May 24; 48(5):260-70. PubMed ID: 19842801
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.