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 *

207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17365050)

  • 1. Real-ear measurement verification for open, non-occluding hearing instruments.
    Lantz J; Jensen OD; Haastrup A; Olsen SØ
    Int J Audiol; 2007 Jan; 46(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 17365050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Are real-ear measurements (REM) accurate when using the modified pressure with stored equalization (MPSE) method?
    Shaw P
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):463-6. PubMed ID: 20192873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Simulated real-ear measurements of benefit from digital feedback suppression.
    Olsen SØ
    Int J Audiol; 2008 Feb; 47(2):51-8. PubMed ID: 18236236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Signal delivery/real ear measurement system for hearing aid selection and fitting.
    Zelisko DL; Seewald RC; Gagné JP
    Ear Hear; 1992 Dec; 13(6):460-3. PubMed ID: 1342584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Client-based adjustments of hearing aid gain: the effect of different control configurations.
    Dreschler WA; Keidser G; Convery E; Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 2008 Apr; 29(2):214-27. PubMed ID: 18490863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Probe tube systems: effects of equalization on real ear insertion and aided gain.
    Moskal NL; Goldstein DP
    Ear Hear; 1992 Feb; 13(1):46-54. PubMed ID: 1541373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of the desired sensation level [input/output] algorithm for adults with hearing loss: the acceptable range for amplified conversational speech.
    Jenstad LM; Bagatto MP; Seewald RC; Scollie SD; Cornelisse LE; Scicluna R
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):793-811. PubMed ID: 17982367
    [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. Behavioral assessment of adaptive feedback equalization in a digital hearing aid.
    French-St George M; Wood DJ; Engebretson AM
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 8263825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of real-ear to coupler difference values in the right and left ear of hearing aid users.
    Munro KJ; Howlin EM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):146-50. PubMed ID: 19745743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Measurement of output sound pressure in a real ear to raise efficacy of electroacoustic hearing correction].
    Sarkisova EA
    Vestn Otorinolaringol; 2003; (6):58-61. PubMed ID: 14671585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Test-retest reliability of probe-microphone verification in children fitted with open and closed hearing aid tips.
    Kim H; Ricketts TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(7):635-42. PubMed ID: 24047950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Verification of in situ thresholds and integrated real-ear measurements.
    Digiovanni JJ; Pratt RM
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2010; 21(10):663-70. PubMed ID: 21376007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Remote probe microphone measurement to verify hearing aid performance.
    Ferrari DV; Bernardez-Braga GR
    J Telemed Telecare; 2009; 15(3):122-4. PubMed ID: 19364892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Probe microphone measurements: 20 years of progress.
    Mueller HG
    Trends Amplif; 2001 Jun; 5(2):35-68. PubMed ID: 25425897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The influence of different speech processor and hearing aid settings on speech perception outcomes in electric acoustic stimulation patients.
    Vermeire K; Anderson I; Flynn M; Van de Heyning P
    Ear Hear; 2008 Jan; 29(1):76-86. PubMed ID: 18091097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Vibrant soundbridge versus conventional hearing aid in sensorineural high-frequency hearing loss: a prospective study.
    Truy E; Philibert B; Vesson JF; Labassi S; Collet L
    Otol Neurotol; 2008 Aug; 29(5):684-7. PubMed ID: 18434928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Towards understanding the specifics of cochlear hearing loss: a modelling approach.
    Stenfelt S
    Int J Audiol; 2008 Nov; 47 Suppl 2():S10-5. PubMed ID: 19012107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.