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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1600213)

  • 1. The effect of equating loudness on audibility-based hearing aid selection procedures.
    Studebaker GA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1992 Mar; 3(2):113-8. PubMed ID: 1600213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting.
    Ching TY; Dillon H; Katsch R; Byrne D
    Ear Hear; 2001 Jun; 22(3):212-24. PubMed ID: 11409857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Use of a loudness model for hearing-aid fitting. I. Linear hearing aids.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    Br J Audiol; 1998 Oct; 32(5):317-35. PubMed ID: 9845030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Derivation of frequency-gain characteristics for maximizing speech reception in noise.
    Rankovic CM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Aug; 38(4):913-29. PubMed ID: 7474983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. The effect of audiovisual and binaural listening on the acceptable noise level (ANL): establishing an ANL conceptual model.
    Wu YH; Stangl E; Pang C; Zhang X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):141-53. PubMed ID: 24828215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Prescriptive hearing aid fitting by parameter adjustment and selection.
    Punch JL; Robb R
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1992 Mar; 3(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 1600220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Application of frequency importance functions to directivity for prediction of benefit in uniform fields.
    Ricketts TA; Henry PP; Hornsby BW
    Ear Hear; 2005 Oct; 26(5):473-86. PubMed ID: 16230897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 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. Preferred listening levels: the effect of background noise for moderate-to-profoundly hearing impaired aid users.
    Dean MR; McDermott HJ
    Scand Audiol; 2000; 29(3):139-49. PubMed ID: 10990012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures.
    Jenstad LM; Seewald RC; Cornelisse LE; Shantz J
    Ear Hear; 1999 Apr; 20(2):117-26. PubMed ID: 10229513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Hearing aid gain for loudness-density normalization in cochlear hearing losses with impaired frequency resolution.
    Leijon A
    Ear Hear; 1991 Aug; 12(4):242-50. PubMed ID: 1783226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 20. Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures.
    Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 1996 Apr; 17(2):124-32. PubMed ID: 8698159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.