441 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10615700)
1. 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]
2. Speech intelligibility benefits of hearing AIDS at various input levels.
Kuk F; Lau CC; Korhonen P; Crose B
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):275-88. PubMed ID: 25751695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids.
Moore BC; Glasberg BR
Br J Audiol; 1988 May; 22(2):93-104. PubMed ID: 3390637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effects of fast-acting high-frequency compression on the intelligibility of speech in steady and fluctuating background sounds.
Stone MA; Moore BC; Wojtczak M; Gudgin E
Br J Audiol; 1997 Aug; 31(4):257-73. PubMed ID: 9307821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility.
Hansen M
Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):369-80. PubMed ID: 12195179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device.
Keidser G; Grant F
Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):501-15. PubMed ID: 11770672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: II. Hearing aids with multi-channel compression.
Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Stone MA; Glasberg BR
Br J Audiol; 1999 Jun; 33(3):157-70. PubMed ID: 10439142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Matching Automatic Gain Control Across Devices in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.
Veugen LC; Chalupper J; Snik AF; Opstal AJ; Mens LH
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):260-70. PubMed ID: 26656192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. IV. Fitting hearing aids with multi-channel compression so as to restore 'normal' loudness for speech at different levels.
Moore BC
Br J Audiol; 2000 Jun; 34(3):165-77. PubMed ID: 10905450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility.
Johnson EE; Dillon H
J Am Acad Audiol; 2011; 22(7):441-59. PubMed ID: 21993050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. I. Experienced users, fitted bilaterally.
Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Marriage J
Br J Audiol; 2001 Dec; 35(6):339-53. PubMed ID: 11848176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 hearing aid fitting methods.
Moore BC; Sęk A
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 22878351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss.
Moore BC; Johnson JS; Clark TM; Pluvinage V
Ear Hear; 1992 Oct; 13(5):349-70. PubMed ID: 1487095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Differences in Word and Phoneme Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Recognition in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes between Manufacturer First-Fit and Hearing Aids Programmed to NAL-NL2 Using Real-Ear Measures.
Valente M; Oeding K; Brockmeyer A; Smith S; Kallogjeri D
J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Sep; 29(8):706-721. PubMed ID: 30222541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effect on speech intelligibility of varying compression time constants in a digital hearing aid.
Moore BC; Stainsby TH; Alcántara JI; Kühnel V
Int J Audiol; 2004; 43(7):399-409. PubMed ID: 15515639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips.
Moore BC; Peters RW; Stone MA
J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Jan; 105(1):400-11. PubMed ID: 9921666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of Threshold Adjustment on Speech Perception in Nucleus Cochlear Implant Recipients.
Busby PA; Arora K
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):303-11. PubMed ID: 26671316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
