Connection

Judy Dubno to Adult

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Judy Dubno has written about Adult.
Judy Dubno
Connection Strength
1.996
Adult
  1. Development and Implementation of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) Functional Staging System. Laryngoscope. 2022 11; 132 Suppl 12:S1-S13.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  2. Understanding Patient Expectations Before Implantation Using the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-Expectations Instrument. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 09 01; 148(9):870-878.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  3. Role of Preoperative Patient Expectations in Adult Cochlear Implant Outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2021 02 01; 42(2):e130-e136.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  4. Age Effects on Cochlear Reflectance in Adults. Ear Hear. 2020 Mar/Apr; 41(2):451-460.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  5. The Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory and Screening Tool Based on Psychometric Reevaluation of the Hearing Handicap Inventories for the Elderly and Adults. Ear Hear. 2020 Jan/Feb; 41(1):95-105.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.047
  6. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global). J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 09 20; 62(9):3554-3563.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  7. 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: 0.046
  8. Association of Demographic and Hearing-Related Factors With Cochlear Implant-Related Quality of Life. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 05 01; 145(5):422-430.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  9. Age effects on the contributions of envelope and periodicity cues to recognition of interrupted speech in quiet and with a competing talker. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019 03; 145(3):EL173.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  10. Earphone and Aided Word Recognition Differences in Cochlear Implant Candidates. Otol Neurotol. 2018 08; 39(7):e543-e549.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  11. Amplitude modulation detection with a short-duration carrier: Effects of a precursor and hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018 04; 143(4):2232.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  12. 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: 0.042
  13. Talker identification: Effects of masking, hearing loss, and age. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018 02; 143(2):1085.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  14. Meta-analysis of Cochlear Implantation Outcomes Evaluated With General Health-related Patient-reported Outcome Measures. Otol Neurotol. 2018 01; 39(1):29-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  15. Transient-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions Reflect Audiometric Patterns of Age-Related Hearing Loss. Trends Hear. 2018 Jan-Dec; 22:2331216518797848.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  16. Complementary metrics of human auditory nerve function derived from compound action potentials. J Neurophysiol. 2018 03 01; 119(3):1019-1028.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  17. Use of Adult Patient Focus Groups to Develop the Initial Item Bank for a Cochlear Implant Quality-of-Life Instrument. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 10 01; 143(10):975-982.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  18. Simultaneous and forward masking of vowels and stop consonants: Effects of age, hearing loss, and spectral shaping. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017 02; 141(2):1133.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  19. Clinical Implications of Word Recognition Differences in Earphone and Aided Conditions. Otol Neurotol. 2016 12; 37(10):1475-1481.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.038
  20. Sentence intelligibility during segmental interruption and masking by speech-modulated noise: Effects of age and hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015 Jun; 137(6):3487-501.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  21. Computational modeling of individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Dec; 15(6):945-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  22. Auditory-evoked cortical activity: contribution of brain noise, phase locking, and spectral power. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 2014 Sep; 25(3):277-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  23. Computational model predictions of cues for concurrent vowel identification. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Oct; 15(5):823-37.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  24. Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening. Ear Hear. 2014 Jan-Feb; 35(1):72-85.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  25. Perceived listening effort for a tonal task with contralateral competing signals. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Oct; 134(4):EL352-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  26. Age and measurement time-of-day effects on speech recognition in noise. Ear Hear. 2013 May-Jun; 34(3):288-99.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.030
  27. Level-dependent changes in perception of speech envelope cues. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2012 Dec; 13(6):835-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  28. Human evoked cortical activity to silent gaps in noise: effects of age, attention, and cortical processing speed. Ear Hear. 2012 May-Jun; 33(3):330-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  29. Individual and level-dependent differences in masking for adults with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Apr; 131(4):EL323-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  30. Level-dependent changes in detection of temporal gaps in noise markers by adults with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Nov; 130(5):2928-38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  31. Individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2012 Feb; 13(1):91-108.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  32. Effects of consonant-vowel intensity ratio on loudness of monosyllabic words. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Nov; 128(5):3105-13.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  33. Age-related differences in gap detection: effects of task difficulty and cognitive ability. Hear Res. 2010 Jun 01; 264(1-2):21-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  34. At the heart of the ventral attention system: the right anterior insula. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Aug; 30(8):2530-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  35. Age-related differences in the temporal modulation transfer function with pure-tone carriers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Dec; 124(6):3841-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  36. Factors affecting the benefits of high-frequency amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Jun; 51(3):798-813.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  37. Age-related differences in sensitivity to small changes in frequency assessed with cortical evoked potentials. Hear Res. 2008 Sep; 243(1-2):47-56.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  38. Binaural advantage for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Apr; 51(2):539-56.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  39. Age-related effects on word recognition: reliance on cognitive control systems with structural declines in speech-responsive cortex. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2008 Jun; 9(2):252-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  40. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response. Ear Hear. 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  41. Frequency modulation detection: effects of age, psychophysical method, and modulation waveform. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Jul; 122(1):467-77.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  42. Estimates of basilar-membrane nonlinearity effects on masking of tones and speech. Ear Hear. 2007 Feb; 28(1):2-17.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  43. Electrophysiologic correlates of intensity discrimination in cortical evoked potentials of younger and older adults. Hear Res. 2007 Jun; 228(1-2):58-68.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  44. Spectral and threshold effects on recognition of speech at higher-than-normal levels. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Jul; 120(1):310-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  45. Word recognition in noise at higher-than-normal levels: decreases in scores and increases in masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Aug; 118(2):914-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  46. Recognition of filtered words in noise at higher-than-normal levels: decreases in scores with and without increases in masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Aug; 118(2):923-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  47. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2084-94.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  48. 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: 0.015
  49. Patient-Related Factors Do Not Predict Use of Computer-Based Auditory Training by New Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients. Otol Neurotol. 2023 02 01; 44(2):e81-e87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  50. Estimated Monetary Value of Future Research Clarifying Uncertainties Around the Optimal Adult Hearing Screening Schedule. JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Nov 04; 3(11):e224065.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  51. Model-Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Adult Hearing Screening in the USA. J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Mar; 38(4):978-985.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  52. Normative Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global Scores for Experienced Cochlear Implant Users from a Multi-Institutional Study. Otol Neurotol. 2022 08 01; 43(7):797-802.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  53. Use of Auditory Training and Its Influence on Early Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Adults. Otol Neurotol. 2022 02 01; 43(2):e165-e173.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  54. Auditory brainstem responses in younger and older adults for broadband noises separated by a silent gap. Hear Res. 2001 Nov; 161(1-2):81-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  55. Validity and reliability of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global instruments in comparison to legacy instruments. Ear Hear. 2021 July/Aug; 42(4):896-908.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  56. The amplitude-modulation following response in young and aged human subjects. Hear Res. 2001 Mar; 153(1-2):32-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  57. Evaluating the Relationship Between Olfactory Function and Loneliness in Community-Dwelling Individuals: A Cross-sectional Study. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2021 May; 35(3):334-340.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  58. A Community-Based Study on the Prevalence of Olfactory Dysfunction. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2020 Sep; 34(5):661-670.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  59. Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures. Audiol Neurootol. 2020; 25(4):215-223.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  60. Factors Influencing Time to Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2020 02; 41(2):173-177.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  61. Use of context by young and aged adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 Jan; 107(1):538-46.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  62. Cingulo-opercular adaptive control for younger and older adults during a challenging gap detection task. J Neurosci Res. 2020 04; 98(4):680-691.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  63. Development of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Item Bank. Ear Hear. 2019 Jul/Aug; 40(4):1016-1024.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  64. Radiologic changes in the aging nasal cavity. Rhinology. 2019 Apr 01; 57(2):117-124.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  65. Reliability of Measures of N1 Peak Amplitude of the Compound Action Potential in Younger and Older Adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018 09 19; 61(9):2422-2430.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  66. Whole exome sequencing in adult-onset hearing loss reveals a high load of predicted pathogenic variants in known deafness-associated genes and identifies new candidate genes. BMC Med Genomics. 2018 Sep 04; 11(1):77.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  67. Communication and Healthcare: Self-Reports of People with Hearing Loss in Primary Care Settings. Clin Gerontol. 2019 Oct-Dec; 42(5):485-494.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  68. Cingulo-opercular activity affects incidental memory encoding for speech in noise. Neuroimage. 2017 08 15; 157:381-387.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  69. Cognitive persistence: Development and validation of a novel measure from the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Neuropsychologia. 2017 Jul 28; 102:95-108.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  70. 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: 0.010
  71. Effects of Age and Implanted Ear on Speech Recognition in Adults with Unilateral Cochlear Implants. Audiol Neurootol. 2016; 21(4):223-230.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  72. Inherent envelope fluctuations in forward maskers: Effects of masker-probe delay for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2016 Mar; 139(3):1195-203.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  73. Confidence limits for maximum word-recognition scores. J Speech Hear Res. 1995 Apr; 38(2):490-502.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  74. Effects of inherent envelope fluctuations in forward maskers for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015 Mar; 137(3):1336-43.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  75. The cingulo-opercular network provides word-recognition benefit. J Neurosci. 2013 Nov 27; 33(48):18979-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  76. Minimal upward spread of masking: correlations with speech and auditory brainstem response masked thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993 Jun; 93(6):3422-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  77. Audition assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology. 2013 Mar 12; 80(11 Suppl 3):S45-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  78. Age-related changes of myelin basic protein in mouse and human auditory nerve. PLoS One. 2012; 7(4):e34500.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  79. 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: 0.007
  80. Inferior frontal sensitivity to common speech sounds is amplified by increasing word intelligibility. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Nov; 49(13):3563-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  81. Word intelligibility and age predict visual cortex activity during word listening. Cereb Cortex. 2012 Jun; 22(6):1360-71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  82. 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: 0.007
  83. Guest editorial: accessible and affordable hearing health care for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2010 Feb; 31(1):2-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  84. Associations among frequency and temporal resolution and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990; 469:23-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  85. Speech recognition in younger and older adults: a dependency on low-level auditory cortex. J Neurosci. 2009 May 13; 29(19):6078-87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  86. Auditory filter characteristics and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1989 Apr; 85(4):1666-75.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  87. 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: 0.006
  88. 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: 0.006
  89. Auditory brain stem evoked response characteristics in the full-term newborn infant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1987 Mar-Apr; 96(2 Pt 1):142-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  90. 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: 0.004
  91. Suggestions for optimizing reliability with the synthetic sentence identification test. J Speech Hear Disord. 1983 Feb; 48(1):98-103.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  92. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Jun; 111(6):2897-907.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  93. 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: 0.003
  94. A potential role for thalamocingulate circuitry in human maternal behavior. Biol Psychiatry. 2002 Mar 15; 51(6):431-45.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  95. 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: 0.003
  96. Predicting consonant confusions from acoustic analysis. J Acoust Soc Am. 1981 Jan; 69(1):249-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  97. Psychometric functions for gap detection in noise measured from young and aged subjects. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Aug; 106(2):966-78.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  98. Feasibility of using fMRI to study mothers responding to infant cries. Depress Anxiety. 1999; 10(3):99-104.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  99. Frequency and intensity discrimination measured in a maximum-likelihood procedure from young and aged normal-hearing subjects. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Jan; 103(1):553-65.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  100. Estimating parameters for psychometric functions using the four-point sampling method. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Dec; 102(6):3697-703.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  101. Masking by ipsilateral and contralateral maskers. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 Nov; 100(5):3336-44.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  102. Comparison of speech recognition-in-noise and subjective communication assessment. Ear Hear. 1985 Nov-Dec; 6(6):291-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  103. Detection of tones in band-reject noise. J Speech Hear Res. 1981 Sep; 24(3):336-44.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
  104. Acoustic-reflex thresholds for noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am. 1980 Sep; 68(3):892-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.001
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.