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 *

159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14759024)

  • 1. Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimation of the field attenuation of hearing protection devices: sample size necessary to provide acceptable reproducibility.
    Murphy WJ; Franks JR; Berger EH; Behar A; Casali JG; Dixon-Ernst C; Krieg EF; Mozo BT; Royster JD; Royster LH; Simon SD; Stephenson C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Jan; 115(1):311-23. PubMed ID: 14759024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part III. The validity of using subject-fit data.
    Berger EH; Franks JR; Behar A; Casali JG; Dixon-Ernst C; Kieper RW; Merry CJ; Mozo BT; Nixon CW; Ohlin D; Royster JD; Royster LH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Feb; 103(2):665-72. PubMed ID: 9479749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Development and validation of a field microphone-in-real-ear approach for measuring hearing protector attenuation.
    Berger EH; Voix J; Kieper RW; Le Cocq C
    Noise Health; 2011; 13(51):163-75. PubMed ID: 21368442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Results of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency interlaboratory comparison of American National Standards Institute S12.6-1997 Methods A and B.
    Murphy WJ; Byrne DC; Gauger D; Ahroon WA; Berger E; Gerges SN; McKinley R; Witt B; Krieg EF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3262-77. PubMed ID: 19425669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Hearing protector attenuation: models of attenuation distributions.
    Murphy WJ; Franks JR; Krieg EF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 May; 111(5 Pt 1):2109-16. PubMed ID: 12051431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Inter-laboratory comparison of three earplug fit-test systems.
    Byrne DC; Murphy WJ; Krieg EF; Ghent RM; Michael KL; Stefanson EW; Ahroon WA
    J Occup Environ Hyg; 2017 Apr; 14(4):294-305. PubMed ID: 27786602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Four earplugs in search of a rating system.
    Franks JR; Murphy WJ; Johnson JL; Harris DA
    Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):218-26. PubMed ID: 10890730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Spectral analysis of hearing protector impulsive insertion loss.
    Fackler CJ; Berger EH; Murphy WJ; Stergar ME
    Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup1):13-21. PubMed ID: 27885881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Attenuation characteristics of an extended-wear hearing aid: Impulse and continuous noise.
    Brungart DS; Spencer NJ; Pryor N; Abouzahra N; McKenna EA; Iyer N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Sep; 148(3):1404. PubMed ID: 33003895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Individual Fit Testing of Hearing-Protection Devices Based on Microphones in Real Ears among Workers in Industries with High-Noise-Level Manufacturing.
    Chiu CC; Wan TJ
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2020 May; 17(9):. PubMed ID: 32384734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Variability of real-world hearing protector attenuation measurements.
    Neitzel R; Somers S; Seixas N
    Ann Occup Hyg; 2006 Oct; 50(7):679-91. PubMed ID: 16782739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Symphony orchestra musicians' use of hearing protection and attenuation of custom-made hearing protectors as measured with two different real-ear attenuation at threshold methods.
    Huttunen KH; Sivonen VP; Poykko VT
    Noise Health; 2011; 13(51):176-88. PubMed ID: 21368443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Consistency of attenuation across multiple fittings of custom and non-custom earplugs.
    Tufts JB; Jahn KN; Byram JP
    Ann Occup Hyg; 2013 Jun; 57(5):571-80. PubMed ID: 23267007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A controlled investigation of in-field attenuation performance of selected insert, earmuff, and canal cap hearing protectors.
    Park MY; Casali JG
    Hum Factors; 1991 Dec; 33(6):693-714. PubMed ID: 1800294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Auditory backup alarms: distance-at-first-detection via in-situ experimentation on alarm design and hearing protection effects.
    Alali K; Casali JG
    Work; 2012; 41 Suppl 1():3599-607. PubMed ID: 22317269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison between subjective and objective measures of active hearing protector and communication headset attenuation.
    Zera J; Brammer AJ; Pan GJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Jun; 101(6):3486-97. PubMed ID: 9193042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of an earphone-support device for measuring earplug attenuation.
    Dolan TG; Maurer JF; Dickinson LG
    Am Ind Hyg Assoc J; 1993 Feb; 54(2):45-50. PubMed ID: 8452096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Attenuation performance of four hearing protectors under dynamic movement and different user fitting conditions.
    Casali JG; Park MY
    Hum Factors; 1990 Feb; 32(1):9-25. PubMed ID: 2376410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Alternative field methods for measuring hearing protector performance.
    Franks JR; Murphy WJ; Harris DA; Johnson JL; Shaw PB
    AIHA J (Fairfax, Va); 2003; 64(4):501-9. PubMed ID: 12908866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Field attenuation characteristics of hearing protectors and differences in estimating their attenuation with different methods.
    Gong W; Xu Y; Liu Y
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Jun; 151(6):3979. PubMed ID: 35778180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.