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)

  • 21. Evaluation of an adaptive, directional-microphone hearing aid.
    Ricketts T; Henry P
    Int J Audiol; 2002 Mar; 41(2):100-12. PubMed ID: 12212855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A comparison between the first-fit settings of two multichannel digital signal-processing strategies: music quality ratings and speech-in-noise scores.
    Higgins P; Searchfield G; Coad G
    Am J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 21(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 22361320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluation of array-processing algorithms for a headband hearing aid.
    Greenberg JE; Desloge JG; Zurek PM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Mar; 113(3):1646-57. PubMed ID: 12656398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Evaluation of Adaptive Noise Management Technologies for School-Age Children with Hearing Loss.
    Wolfe J; Duke M; Schafer E; Jones C; Rakita L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 May; 28(5):415-435. PubMed ID: 28534732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Benefits of incorporating the adaptive dynamic range optimization amplification scheme into an assistive listening device for people with mild or moderate hearing loss.
    Chang HY; Luo CH; Lo TS; Chen HC; Huang KY; Liao WH; Su MC; Liu SY; Wang NM
    Assist Technol; 2018; 30(5):226-232. PubMed ID: 28846498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction.
    Ricketts TA; Hornsby BW
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2005 May; 16(5):270-7. PubMed ID: 16119254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evaluation of a transient noise reduction strategy for hearing AIDS.
    Liu H; Zhang H; Bentler RA; Han D; Zhang L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 Sep; 23(8):606-15. PubMed ID: 22967735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Loudness and satisfaction ratings for hearing aid users.
    Blamey PJ; Martin LF
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2009 Apr; 20(4):272-82. PubMed ID: 19927699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Hearing aids: objective and subjective evaluations of linear and nonlinear amplification users].
    Costa LP; Iório MC
    Pro Fono; 2006; 18(1):21-30. PubMed ID: 16625868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. An evaluation of two signal-processing hearing aids.
    Dempsey JJ; Linzalone TG
    J Commun Disord; 1991 Jun; 24(3):180-6. PubMed ID: 1939723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits II: aided loudness measures.
    Jenstad LM; Pumford J; Seewald RC; Cornelisse LE
    Ear Hear; 2000 Feb; 21(1):32-44. PubMed ID: 10708072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. [Evaluation of a transient noise reduction strategy on the loudness perception and sound quality].
    Liu H; Zhang H; Chen X; Wu Y; Kong Y; Wang S; Li J
    Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2010 Oct; 24(19):886-9. PubMed ID: 21174750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluation of a BICROS System with a Directional Microphone in the Receiver and Transmitter.
    Valente M; Oeding K
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015; 26(10):856-71. PubMed ID: 26554490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Comparison of two digital hearing instrument fitting strategies.
    Wesselkamp M; Margolf-Hackl S; Kiessling J
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 2001; (52):73-5. PubMed ID: 11318489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical evaluation of a full-digital in-the-ear hearing instrument.
    Boymans M; Dreschler WA; Schoneveld P; Verschuure H
    Audiology; 1999; 38(2):99-108. PubMed ID: 10206519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid.
    Alcántara JL; Moore BC; Kühnel V; Launer S
    Int J Audiol; 2003 Jan; 42(1):34-42. PubMed ID: 12564514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Personal amplification for school-age children with auditory processing disorders.
    Kuk F; Jackson A; Keenan D; Lau CC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008 Jun; 19(6):465-80. PubMed ID: 19253780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.