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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10025544)

  • 1. A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid.
    Humes LE; Christensen L; Thomas T; Bess FH; Hedley-Williams A; Bentler R
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1999 Feb; 42(1):65-79. PubMed ID: 10025544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing AIDS.
    Shanks JE; Wilson RH; Larson V; Williams D
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):280-90. PubMed ID: 12195170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain.
    Humes LE; Christensen LA; Bess FH; Hedley-Williams A
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1997 Jun; 40(3):666-85. PubMed ID: 9210122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures.
    Jenstad LM; Seewald RC; Cornelisse LE; Shantz J
    Ear Hear; 1999 Apr; 20(2):117-26. PubMed ID: 10229513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial. NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group.
    Larson VD; Williams DW; Henderson WG; Luethke LE; Beck LB; Noffsinger D; Wilson RH; Dobie RA; Haskell GB; Bratt GW; Shanks JE; Stelmachowicz P; Studebaker GA; Boysen AE; Donahue A; Canalis R; Fausti SA; Rappaport BZ
    JAMA; 2000 Oct; 284(14):1806-13. PubMed ID: 11025833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of the NAL(R) and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids.
    Peters RW; Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
    Br J Audiol; 2000 Feb; 34(1):21-36. PubMed ID: 10759075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Quality rating test of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA Clinical Trial.
    Noffsinger D; Haskell GB; Larson VD; Williams DW; Wilson E; Plunkett S; Kenworthy D
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):291-300. PubMed ID: 12195171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users?
    Smeds K
    Ear Hear; 2004 Apr; 25(2):159-72. PubMed ID: 15064661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of performance with wide dynamic range compression and linear amplification.
    Kam AC; Wong LL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1999 Sep; 10(8):445-57. PubMed ID: 10813645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of Extended-Wear Hearing Technology for Children with Hearing Loss.
    Wolfe J; Schafer E; Martella N; Morais M; Mann M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015; 26(7):615-31. PubMed ID: 26218051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise.
    Kuk F; Keenan D; Korhonen P; Lau CC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2009 Sep; 20(8):465-79. PubMed ID: 19764167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits II: aided loudness measures.
    Jenstad LM; Pumford J; Seewald RC; Cornelisse LE
    Ear Hear; 2000 Feb; 21(1):32-44. PubMed ID: 10708072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
    Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies.
    Walden BE; Surr RK; Cord MT; Edwards B; Olson L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2000; 11(10):540-60. PubMed ID: 11198072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reliability and validity of judgments of sound quality in elderly hearing aid wearers.
    Narendran MM; Humes LE
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):4-11. PubMed ID: 12598808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of multichannel wide dynamic range compression and ChannelFree processing in open canal hearing instruments.
    Plyler PN; Reber MB; Kovach A; Galloway E; Humphrey E
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Feb; 24(2):126-37. PubMed ID: 23357806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: perception and prediction.
    Wu YH; Stangl E
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):333-41. PubMed ID: 23334355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF method for fitting hearing aids with multichannel amplitude compression.
    Moore BC; Füllgrabe C
    Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):657-66. PubMed ID: 20526199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids.
    Stone MA; Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Glasberg BR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Dec; 106(6):3603-19. PubMed ID: 10615700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.