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.
181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14974623)
1. 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]
2. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
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. 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]
13. Comparison of two adaptive procedures for fitting a multi-channel compression hearing aid. Moore BC; Marriage J; Alcántara J; Glasberg BR Int J Audiol; 2005 Jun; 44(6):345-57. PubMed ID: 16078730 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
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]