Connection

Judy Dubno to Hearing Loss, Sensorineural

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Judy Dubno has written about Hearing Loss, Sensorineural.
Judy Dubno
Connection Strength
6.298
Hearing Loss, Sensorineural
  1. Metabolic and Sensory Components of Age-Related Hearing Loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2022 04; 23(2):253-272.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.756
  2. Comparing Speech Recognition for Listeners With Normal and Impaired Hearing: Simulations for Controlling Differences in Speech Levels and Spectral Shape. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020 12 14; 63(12):4289-4299.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.697
  3. General Health Quality of Life Instruments Underestimate the Impact of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2019 07; 40(6):745-753.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.633
  4. Factors associated with benefit of active middle ear implants compared to conventional hearing aids. Laryngoscope. 2018 09; 128(9):2133-2138.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.577
  5. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope. 2018 04; 128(4):982-990.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.553
  6. Individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2012 Feb; 13(1):91-108.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.369
  7. Spatial benefit of bilateral hearing AIDS. Ear Hear. 2009 Apr; 30(2):203-18.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.311
  8. Spectral contributions to the benefit from spatial separation of speech and noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002 Dec; 45(6):1297-310.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.201
  9. Cross-frequency weights in normal and impaired hearing: Stimulus factors, stimulus dimensions, and associations with speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2021 10; 150(4):2327.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.185
  10. Individual Differences in Speech Recognition Changes After Cochlear Implantation. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021 03 01; 147(3):280-286.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.178
  11. Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures. Audiol Neurootol. 2020; 25(4):215-223.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.167
  12. Factors Influencing Time to Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2020 02; 41(2):173-177.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.165
  13. Hearing-Impaired Listeners Show Reduced Attention to High-Frequency Information in the Presence of Low-Frequency Information. Trends Hear. 2020 Jan-Dec; 24:2331216520945516.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.164
  14. Transient-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions Reflect Audiometric Patterns of Age-Related Hearing Loss. Trends Hear. 2018 Jan-Dec; 22:2331216518797848.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.143
  15. Syllable-constituent perception by hearing-aid users: Common factors in quiet and noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017 04; 141(4):2933.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.135
  16. Masked thresholds and consonant recognition in low-pass maskers for hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Apr; 97(4):2430-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.118
  17. Frequency selectivity and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners with equivalent masked thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Feb; 97(2):1165-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.117
  18. Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992 Apr; 91(4 Pt 1):2110-21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.096
  19. Frequency selectivity for hearing-impaired and broadband-noise-masked normal listeners. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1991 Aug; 43(3):543-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.091
  20. Associations among frequency and temporal resolution and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990; 469:23-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.082
  21. Auditory filter characteristics and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1989 Apr; 85(4):1666-75.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.078
  22. Effects of hearing loss on utilization of short-duration spectral cues in stop consonant recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 1987 Jun; 81(6):1940-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  23. Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984 Jul; 76(1):87-96.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  24. Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a Nonsense-Syllable Test. I. Test reliability. J Speech Hear Res. 1982 Mar; 25(1):135-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  25. Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a Nonsense-syllable Test. II. Syllable recognition and consonant confusion patterns. J Speech Hear Res. 1982 Mar; 25(1):141-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  26. Analysis of blood chemistry and hearing levels in a sample of older persons. Ear Hear. 1998 Jun; 19(3):180-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  27. Gender-specific effects of medicinal drugs on hearing levels of older persons. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998 Feb; 118(2):221-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  28. Age-related and gender-related changes in monaural speech recognition. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997 Apr; 40(2):444-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  29. Growth of low-pass masking of pure tones and speech for hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Dec; 98(6):3113-24.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  30. Confidence limits for maximum word-recognition scores. J Speech Hear Res. 1995 Apr; 38(2):490-502.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  31. Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. I: The contribution of selected frequency regions. J Acoust Soc Am. 1989 Jan; 85(1):347-54.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  32. Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. II: Articulation index predictions. J Acoust Soc Am. 1989 Jan; 85(1):355-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  33. Comparison of speech recognition-in-noise and subjective communication assessment. Ear Hear. 1985 Nov-Dec; 6(6):291-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  34. Suggestions for optimizing reliability with the synthetic sentence identification test. J Speech Hear Disord. 1983 Feb; 48(1):98-103.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  35. A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition. J Speech Hear Disord. 1982 May; 47(2):114-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  36. Speech recognition performance at loudness discomfort level. Scand Audiol. 1981; 10(4):239-46.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  37. Masking of auditory brainstem responses in young and aged gerbils. Hear Res. 1995 Sep; 89(1-2):1-13.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.