505 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10890726)
1. An examination of the practicality of the simplex procedure.
Preminger JE; Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Walters D; Levitt H
Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):177-93. PubMed ID: 10890726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Implications of high-frequency cochlear dead regions for fitting hearing aids to adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss.
Cox RM; Johnson JA; Alexander GC
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):573-87. PubMed ID: 22555183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. An initial-fit comparison of two generic hearing aid prescriptive methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to individuals having mild to moderately severe high-frequency hearing loss.
Johnson EE
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Feb; 24(2):138-50. PubMed ID: 23357807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Transitioning hearing aid users with severe and profound loss to a new gain/frequency response: benefit, perception, and acceptance.
Convery E; Keidser G
J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Mar; 22(3):168-80. PubMed ID: 21545769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Effects of Modified Hearing Aid Fittings on Loudness and Tone Quality for Different Acoustic Scenes.
Moore BC; Baer T; Ives DT; Marriage J; Salorio-Corbetto M
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(4):483-91. PubMed ID: 26928003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Investigation of Extended Bandwidth Hearing Aid Amplification on Speech Intelligibility and Sound Quality in Adults with Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss.
Seeto A; Searchfield GD
J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Mar; 29(3):243-254. PubMed ID: 29488874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in Hearing Aids Fit to Children with Severe or Profound Hearing Loss: Goodness of Fit-to-Targets, Impacts on Predicted Loudness and Speech Intelligibility.
Ching TY; Quar TK; Johnson EE; Newall P; Sharma M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):260-74. PubMed ID: 25751694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Listener Factors Explain Little Variability in Self-Adjusted Hearing Aid Gain.
Perry TT; Nelson PB; Van Tasell DJ
Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519837124. PubMed ID: 30880645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Predicted and measured speech recognition performance in noise with linear amplification.
Magnusson L; Karlsson M; Leijon A
Ear Hear; 2001 Feb; 22(1):46-57. PubMed ID: 11271975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs) in adults in response to filtered speech stimuli.
Carter L; Dillon H; Seymour J; Seeto M; Van Dun B
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Oct; 24(9):807-22. PubMed ID: 24224988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Sentence recognition in noise and perceived benefit of noise reduction on the receiver and transmitter sides of a BICROS hearing aid.
Oeding K; Valente M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(10):980-91. PubMed ID: 24384083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids.
Stelmachowicz PG; Dalzell S; Peterson D; Kopun J; Lewis DL; Hoover BE
Ear Hear; 1998 Apr; 19(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 9562535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Speech Perception in Noise and Listening Effort of Older Adults With Nonlinear Frequency Compression Hearing Aids.
Shehorn J; Marrone N; Muller T
Ear Hear; 2018; 39(2):215-225. PubMed ID: 28806193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
