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

176 related items for PubMed ID: 26321967

  • 1. Subjective ratings of masker disturbance during the perception of native and non-native speech.
    Kilman L, Zekveld AA, Hällgren M, Rönnberg J.
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1065. PubMed ID: 26321967
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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]

  • 3. The fluctuating masker benefit for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners with equal audibility at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio.
    Jensen KK, Bernstein JGW.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Apr 24; 145(4):2113. PubMed ID: 31046298
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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 24; 47(2):245-56. PubMed ID: 15157127
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech for native and nonnative english speakers.
    Calandruccio L, Bradlow AR, Dhar S.
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Apr 24; 25(4):355-66. PubMed ID: 25126683
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Does the degree of linguistic experience (native versus nonnative) modulate the degree to which listeners can benefit from a delay between the onset of the maskers and the onset of the target speech?
    Ben-David BM, Avivi-Reich M, Schneider BA.
    Hear Res; 2016 Nov 24; 341():9-18. PubMed ID: 27496539
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise.
    Garcia Lecumberri ML, Cooke M.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Apr 24; 119(4):2445-54. PubMed ID: 16642857
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance.
    Kilman L, Zekveld A, Hällgren M, Rönnberg J.
    Front Psychol; 2014 Apr 24; 5():651. PubMed ID: 25071630
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Phoneme recognition in vocoded maskers by normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners.
    Phatak SA, Grant KW.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug 24; 136(2):859-66. PubMed ID: 25096119
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Listening Effort by Native and Nonnative Listeners Due to Noise, Reverberation, and Talker Foreign Accent During English Speech Perception.
    Peng ZE, Wang LM.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2019 Apr 15; 62(4):1068-1081. PubMed ID: 30986135
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Bernstein JG, Grant KW.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May 15; 125(5):3358-72. PubMed ID: 19425676
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Sentence Recognition in Steady-State Speech-Shaped Noise versus Four-Talker Babble.
    Vermiglio AJ, Herring CC, Heeke P, Post CE, Fang X.
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Jan 15; 30(1):54-65. PubMed ID: 30461388
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Intelligibility of Noise-Adapted and Clear Speech in Energetic and Informational Maskers for Native and Nonnative Listeners.
    Meemann K, Smiljanić R.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2022 Apr 04; 65(4):1263-1281. PubMed ID: 35235410
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Auditory neural tracking and lexical processing of speech in noise: Masker type, spatial location, and language experience.
    Song J, Martin L, Iverson P.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Jul 04; 148(1):253. PubMed ID: 32752786
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Effectiveness of Two-Talker Maskers That Differ in Talker Congruity and Perceptual Similarity to the Target Speech.
    Calandruccio L, Buss E, Bowdrie K.
    Trends Hear; 2017 Jul 04; 21():2331216517709385. PubMed ID: 29169315
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Speech Perception in Noise With Formant Enhancement for Older Listeners.
    Guan J, Liu C.
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2019 Sep 20; 62(9):3290-3301. PubMed ID: 31479380
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first- and second-language multi-talker babble.
    Van Engen KJ.
    Speech Commun; 2010 Dec 30; 52(11-12):943-953. PubMed ID: 21179561
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Inherent envelope fluctuations in forward maskers: Effects of masker-probe delay for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Svec A, Dubno JR, Nelson PB.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Mar 30; 139(3):1195-203. PubMed ID: 27036255
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. The Optimal Speech-to-Background Ratio for Balancing Speech Recognition With Environmental Sound Recognition.
    Johnson EM, Healy EW.
    Ear Hear; 2016 Mar 30; 45(6):1444-1460. PubMed ID: 38816900
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss.
    Souza PE, Turner CW.
    J Speech Hear Res; 1994 Jun 30; 37(3):655-61. PubMed ID: 8084195
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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