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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17153718)

  • 1. Effect of multichannel digital signal processing on loudness comfort, sentence recognition, and sound quality.
    Mispagel KM; Valente M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2006; 17(10):681-707. PubMed ID: 17153718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Performance benefits for adults using a cochlear implant with adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a comparative study.
    Müller-Deile J; Kiefer J; Wyss J; Nicolai J; Battmer R
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2008 Mar; 9(1):8-26. PubMed ID: 18300224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Sentence recognition in noise and perceived benefit of noise reduction on the receiver and transmitter sides of a BICROS hearing aid.
    Oeding K; Valente M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(10):980-91. PubMed ID: 24384083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality.
    Boymans M; Dreschler WA
    Audiology; 2000; 39(5):260-8. PubMed ID: 11093610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effects of digital signal processing features on children's speech recognition and loudness perception.
    Crukley J; Scollie SD
    Am J Audiol; 2014 Mar; 23(1):99-115. PubMed ID: 24018572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Potential benefits and limitations of three types of directional processing in hearing aids.
    Picou EM; Aspell E; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(3):339-52. PubMed ID: 24518429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of a portable digital hearing aid with narrow-band loudness compensation.
    Hidaka H; Kawase T; Takahashi S; Suzuki Y; Ozawa K; Sakamoto S; Sasaki N; Hirano K; Ueda N; Sone T; Takasaka T
    Scand Audiol; 1998; 27(4):225-36. PubMed ID: 9832405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Effect of a High Upper Input Limiting Level on Word Recognition in Noise, Sound Quality Preferences, and Subjective Ratings of Real-World Performance.
    Oeding K; Valente M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Jun; 26(6):547-62. PubMed ID: 26134722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Tolerable hearing aid delays. V. Estimation of limits for open canal fittings.
    Stone MA; Moore BC; Meisenbacher K; Derleth RP
    Ear Hear; 2008 Aug; 29(4):601-17. PubMed ID: 18469715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Improvement of hearing aid fitting with digital aids and new fitting strategies].
    Schorn K; Baumann U
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1999 Jan; 78(1):14-9. PubMed ID: 10080122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt).
    Kiessling J; Schubert M; Archut A
    Scand Audiol; 1996; 25(3):153-60. PubMed ID: 8881002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Control of hearing-aid saturated sound pressure level by frequency-shaped output compression limiting.
    McDermott HJ; Dean MR; Dillon H
    Scand Audiol; 1999; 28(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 10207954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor.
    Mertens G; Hofkens A; Punte AK; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
    Otol Neurotol; 2015 Jan; 36(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 25406874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A digital filterbank hearing aid: three digital signal processing algorithms--user preference and performance.
    Lunner T; Hellgren J; Arlinger S; Elberling C
    Ear Hear; 1997 Oct; 18(5):373-87. PubMed ID: 9360861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.