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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15575335)

  • 1. Effect of release time on preferred gain and speech acoustics.
    Muller TF; Harris FP; Ellison JC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2004 Oct; 15(9):605-15. PubMed ID: 15575335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss and personal hearing AIDS on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing.
    Korczak PA; Kurtzberg D; Stapells DR
    Ear Hear; 2005 Apr; 26(2):165-85. PubMed ID: 15809543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss.
    Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of a speech enhancement strategy with normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Jamieson DG; Brennan RL; Cornelisse LE
    Ear Hear; 1995 Jun; 16(3):274-86. PubMed ID: 7672476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The 500 Hz masking-level difference and word recognition in multitalker babble for 40- to 89-year-old listeners with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss.
    Wilson RH; Weakley DG
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2005 Jun; 16(6):367-82. PubMed ID: 16178408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of a transient noise reduction algorithm on speech understanding, subjective preference, and preferred gain.
    Korhonen P; Kuk F; Lau C; Keenan D; Schumacher J; Nielsen J
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Oct; 24(9):845-58. PubMed ID: 24224991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. A comparison of two word-recognition tasks in multitalker babble: Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) and Words-in-Noise Test (WIN).
    Wilson RH; Cates WB
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008; 19(7):548-56. PubMed ID: 19248731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The effects of noise reduction technologies on the acceptance of background noise.
    Lowery KJ; Plyler PN
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Sep; 24(8):649-59. PubMed ID: 24131601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The performance of an automatic acoustic-based program classifier compared to hearing aid users' manual selection of listening programs.
    Searchfield GD; Linford T; Kobayashi K; Crowhen D; Latzel M
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):201-212. PubMed ID: 29069954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Preferred listening levels for linear and slow-acting compression hearing aids.
    Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Hellman S; Levitt H
    Ear Hear; 1995 Aug; 16(4):407-16. PubMed ID: 8549896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Acoustic and perceptual effects of magnifying interaural difference cues in a simulated "binaural" hearing aid.
    de Taillez T; Grimm G; Kollmeier B; Neher T
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S81-S91. PubMed ID: 28395561
    [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]
    of 6.