ライフサイエンスコーパス: intelligibility

1 lative importance of the various factors for intelligibility.

2 less so in SSN, and (d) age per se impaired intelligibility.

3 h is an important cue contributing to speech intelligibility.

4 at have been found to be critical for speech intelligibility.

5 and before being explicitly informed of its intelligibility.

6 sking, a property that contributes to speech intelligibility.

7 n of approaches which seek everyday forms of intelligibility.

8 rimination ability is correlated with speech intelligibility.

9 h equivalent acoustic complexity but varying intelligibility.

10 ng was shown to untrained measures of speech intelligibility (11/13 articles), cognition (1/1 article

11 [3, 4], and this entrainment increases with intelligibility [5].

12 However, no significant intelligibility advantage was observed for musicians ove

13 ation level-dependent signal correlated with intelligibility along the superior and middle temporal g

14 signals can lead to an improvement in target intelligibility, an effect known as spatial release from

15 Both speech intelligibility and acceptable noise level (ANL) were as

16 eriodic cues of TFS are essential for speech intelligibility and are encoded in auditory neurons by p

17 -0.032, OR 1.08 [1.00-1.17]), worse language intelligibility and fluency (beta -0.032, OR 1.10 [1.02-

18 Despite its intelligibility and intuitiveness, the traditional seque

19 ontal operculum in response to poorer speech intelligibility and response errors.

20 local speech rate irregular while preserving intelligibility and the envelope fluctuations of the aco

21 that (a) cochlear gain loss was unrelated to intelligibility, (b) residual cochlear compression was r

22 hereas the ENV cues are important for speech intelligibility, binaural TFS cues are critical for perc

23 itory cortex, bilaterally, were sensitive to intelligibility but also showed a differential response

24 In summary, all factors affected intelligibility, but their relative importance varied ac

25 Perceptual phase entrainment improves speech intelligibility by phase-locking the brain's high-excita

26 hreshold, that determines the improvement in intelligibility caused by any given improvement in signa

27 ometric function, that is, the rate at which intelligibility changes with level, been considered.

28 er-based auditory training to improve speech intelligibility, cognition and communication abilities i

29 Gains in speech intelligibility could be predicted from gameplay accurac

30 , the model is applied to predict the speech intelligibility data measured by Marrone et al.

31 Intelligibility decreased linearly as the amount of repl

32 d to contribute to speech discrimination and intelligibility deficits in people with normal audiologi

33 thm outside the natural range reduces speech intelligibility, demonstrating a perceptual tuning to th

34 er se was affected: face recognition, speech intelligibility, emotion recognition, and musical abilit

35 gh the VGHA has been shown to enhance speech intelligibility for fixed-location, frontal targets, it

36 In those cases, speech intelligibility for target speech is typically higher th

37 As expected, speech intelligibility improved with increasing F0 difference b

38 rs from target speech often leads to a large intelligibility improvement.

39 easured data well, even though the predicted intelligibility improvements relative to the colocated c

40 temporal processing was strongly related to intelligibility in a R2TM and much less so in SSN, and (

41 tcome was assessed by measuring aided speech intelligibility in a time-reversed two-talker background

42 Seeing a speaker's face enhances speech intelligibility in adverse environments.

43 at musical training leads to improved speech intelligibility in complex speech or noise backgrounds.

44 Our study demonstrated that speech intelligibility in humans relied on the periodic cues of

45 ber of approaches have suggested that speech intelligibility in noise can be improved further by maki

46 This investigation examined whether speech intelligibility in noise can be improved using a new, bi

47 same input, known as diotic hearing, speech intelligibility in noise is improved.

48 younger hearing-aid users with good unaided intelligibility in quiet and with good temporal processi

49 residual cochlear compression was related to intelligibility in SSN but not in a R2TM, (c) temporal p

50 ple Input/Output, DSL m[i/o]) for the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and high-frequency audibilit

51 combination with the Coherence-based Speech Intelligibility Index, the model is applied to predict t

52 entrainment is strongly reduced when speech intelligibility is abolished by presenting speech/noise

53 Speech intelligibility is better predicted by nonlinguistic sen

54 Most notably for the lowest intelligibility level, perceptual learning occurred only

55 r trained pairs, improved d' was seen on all intelligibility levels regardless of tDCS intervention.

56 g their remarkable fidelity, we examined the intelligibility of auditory playbacks (i.e., "sonificati

57 the presence of background noise, the speech intelligibility of cochlear implant listeners is more su

58 a more nuanced answer to the question of the intelligibility of delusion becomes possible.

59 The question of the intelligibility of delusion has recently been addressed

60 tification, word-final /s, z/ detection, the intelligibility of sentences in noise, and subjective be

61 cts of different listening conditions on the intelligibility of speech, their analyses have often con

62 auditory cortex, and this effect depends on intelligibility of speech.

63 ds have mainly been designed to optimize the intelligibility of speech.

64 recognition task in an MRI scanner where the intelligibility of words was parametrically varied.

65 ether this depended on the acoustic quality (intelligibility) of the speech.

66 urally occurring asynchronies do not disrupt intelligibility or perceptual coherence.

67 hysics, and has been shown to predict speech intelligibility performance in a range of adverse listen

68 frequency, has been shown to predict speech intelligibility performance in a range of adverse listen

69 partially overlapped with areas sensitive to intelligibility, perhaps reflecting attentional modulati

70 ion to varying degrees to produce a range of intelligibility (quantified as the number of words that

71 cted to make further contributions to speech intelligibility (recognition) for the average listener.

72 xertion of effort can be elevated, even when intelligibility remains high.

73 ably, however, voice-hearers showed stronger intelligibility responses than controls in the dorsal an

74 ves some motor components of speech although intelligibility seems to decrease after surgery.

75 More distant intelligibility-sensitive regions within the superior an

76 Aided intelligibility tended to be better for younger hearing-

77 Intelligibility tended to improve by increasing amplific

78 ignals led to larger values of MR and higher intelligibility than obtained with unprocessed signals.

79 speed, incoming words must be buffered, and intelligibility vanishes when buffer storage and retriev

80 Although speech intelligibility varied across condition, there was no ev

81 compensate for their audiometric losses, and intelligibility was assessed for speech-shaped noise (SS

82 ch or as "noise-vocoded" speech in which the intelligibility was conveyed only by the speech ENVs fro

83 Relative intelligibility was not well accounted for on the basis

84 pattern of results was maintained even when intelligibility was perfect.

85 When intelligibility was restored with the insertion of silen

86 Speech intelligibility was then tested for normal-hearing liste

87 Whereas speech intelligibility was unchanged after WM training, subject

88 the algorithm significantly enhances speech intelligibility with the selected sparsity constraints.