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

1001 related items for PubMed ID: 28656807

  • 1. The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
    van den Tillaart-Haverkate M, de Ronde-Brons I, Dreschler WA, Houben R.
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517716844. PubMed ID: 28656807
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Perceptual effects of noise reduction by time-frequency masking of noisy speech.
    Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2690-9. PubMed ID: 23039461
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort.
    Houben R, van Doorn-Bierman M, Dreschler WA.
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Nov; 52(11):753-61. PubMed ID: 24053226
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
    Fink N, Furst M, Muchnik C.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
    Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Festen JM.
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response.
    Ohlenforst B, Wendt D, Kramer SE, Naylor G, Zekveld AA, Lunner T.
    Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 365():90-99. PubMed ID: 29779607
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Extension and evaluation of a near-end listening enhancement algorithm for listeners with normal and impaired hearing.
    Rennies J, Drefs J, Hülsmeier D, Schepker H, Doclo S.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2526. PubMed ID: 28464693
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA.
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct 13; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315377
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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 13; 137(6):3487-501. PubMed ID: 26093436
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Effect of Energy Equalization on the Intelligibility of Speech in Fluctuating Background Interference for Listeners With Hearing Impairment.
    D'Aquila LA, Desloge JG, Reed CM, Braida LD.
    Trends Hear; 2017 Jun 13; 21():2331216517710354. PubMed ID: 28602128
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Measuring the Influence of Noise Reduction on Listening Effort in Hearing-Impaired Listeners Using Response Times to an Arithmetic Task in Noise.
    Reinten I, De Ronde-Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler W.
    Trends Hear; 2021 Jun 13; 25():23312165211014437. PubMed ID: 34027725
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. An algorithm to improve speech recognition in noise for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Healy EW, Yoho SE, Wang Y, Wang D.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct 13; 134(4):3029-38. PubMed ID: 24116438
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response.
    Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Festen JM.
    Ear Hear; 2011 Oct 13; 32(4):498-510. PubMed ID: 21233711
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Effect of the division between early and late reflections on intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech.
    Li J, Xia R, Fang Q, Li A, Pan J, Yan Y.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 May 13; 137(5):2801-10. PubMed ID: 25994708
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Large-scale training to increase speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners in novel noises.
    Chen J, Wang Y, Yoho SE, Wang D, Healy EW.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 May 13; 139(5):2604. PubMed ID: 27250154
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Sentence perception in listening conditions having similar speech intelligibility indices.
    Gustafson SJ, Pittman AL.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan 13; 50(1):34-40. PubMed ID: 21047291
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Relation Between Listening Effort and Speech Intelligibility in Noise.
    Krueger M, Schulte M, Zokoll MA, Wagener KC, Meis M, Brand T, Holube I.
    Am J Audiol; 2017 Oct 12; 26(3S):378-392. PubMed ID: 29049622
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Speech quality evaluation of a sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm with normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J, Hu H, Zheng C, Li G, Lutman ME, Bleeck S.
    Hear Res; 2015 Sep 12; 327():175-85. PubMed ID: 26232529
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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 12; 351():68-79. PubMed ID: 28622894
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Völker C, Warzybok A, Ernst SM.
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec 30; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 51.