202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11848176)
1. 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]
2. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. II. Experienced users, fitted unilaterally.
Alcántara JI; Moore BC; Marriage J
Int J Audiol; 2004 Jan; 43(1):3-14. PubMed ID: 14974623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users.
Marriage J; Moore BC; Alcántara JI
Int J Audiol; 2004 Apr; 43(4):198-210. PubMed ID: 15250124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Achieved Gain and Subjective Outcomes for a Wide-Bandwidth Contact Hearing Aid Fitted Using CAM2.
Arbogast TL; Moore BCJ; Puria S; Dundas D; Brimacombe J; Edwards B; Carr Levy S
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(3):741-756. PubMed ID: 30300158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. The Effects of Manufacturer's Prefit and Real-Ear Fitting on the Predicted Speech Perception of Children with Severe to Profound Hearing Loss.
Quar TK; Umat C; Chew YY
J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 May; 30(5):346-356. PubMed ID: 30461383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression.
Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
Br J Audiol; 1999 Aug; 33(4):241-58. PubMed ID: 10509859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
