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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17344545)

  • 1. The objective and subjective evaluation of multichannel expansion in wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments.
    Plyler PN; Lowery KJ; Hamby HM; Trine TD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Feb; 50(1):15-24. PubMed ID: 17344545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effects of high-frequency amplification on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users with varying degrees of high-frequency hearing loss.
    Plyler PN; Fleck EL
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Jun; 49(3):616-27. PubMed ID: 16787899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The objective and subjective evaluation of low-frequency expansion in wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments.
    Lowery KJ; Plyler PN
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2007 Sep; 18(8):641-52. PubMed ID: 18326151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The subjective evaluation of the expansion time constant in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments.
    Plyler PN; Trine TD; Blair Hill A
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Jun; 45(6):331-6. PubMed ID: 16777779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    Başkent D; Eiler CL; Edwards B
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):370-80. PubMed ID: 17485986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing.
    Rudner M; Foo C; Rönnberg J; Lunner T
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):879-92. PubMed ID: 17982373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effects of noise source configuration on directional benefit using symmetric and asymmetric directional hearing aid fittings.
    Hornsby BW; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 17496669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
    Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.
    Plant K; Holden L; Skinner M; Arcaroli J; Whitford L; Law MA; Nel E
    Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):381-93. PubMed ID: 17485987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Objective and subjective hearing aid assessment outcomes.
    Mendel LL
    Am J Audiol; 2007 Dec; 16(2):118-29. PubMed ID: 18056880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Contribution of high frequencies to speech recognition in quiet and noise in listeners with varying degrees of high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.
    Amos NE; Humes LE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Aug; 50(4):819-34. PubMed ID: 17675588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effects of expansion on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users.
    Plyler PN; Hill AB; Trine TD
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2005 Feb; 16(2):101-13. PubMed ID: 15807049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss.
    Shi LF; Doherty KA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1328-40. PubMed ID: 18664685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The design and evaluation of a hearing aid with trainable amplification parameters.
    Zakis JA; Dillon H; McDermott HJ
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):812-30. PubMed ID: 17982368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The acceptance of background noise in adult cochlear implant users.
    Plyler PN; Bahng J; von Hapsburg D
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Apr; 51(2):502-15. PubMed ID: 18367692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of single-channel phonemic compression schemes on the understanding of speech by hearing-impaired listeners.
    Goedegebure A; Hulshof M; Maas RJ; Dreschler WA; Verschuure H
    Audiology; 2001; 40(1):10-25. PubMed ID: 11296937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The Effects of Extended Input Dynamic Range on Laboratory and Field-Trial Evaluations in Adult Hearing Aid Users.
    Plyler PN; Easterday M; Behrens T
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019; 30(7):634-648. PubMed ID: 30403956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.