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.
3. Adaptive feedback stabilization of hearing aids. Engebretson AM; French-St George M; O'Connell MP Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():56-64. PubMed ID: 8153565 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Using a reflection model for modeling the dynamic feedback path of digital hearing aids. Ma G; Gran F; Jacobsen F; Agerkvist F J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Mar; 127(3):1458-68. PubMed ID: 20329846 [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. Acoustic feedback margin improvements in hearing instruments using a prototype DFS (digital feedback suppression) system. Dyrlund O; Bisgaard N Scand Audiol; 1991; 20(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 1842269 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Digital feedback suppression (DFS). Characterization of feedback-margin improvements in a DFS hearing instrument. Dyrlund O; Henningsen LB; Bisgaard N; Jensen JH Scand Audiol; 1994; 23(2):135-8. PubMed ID: 8085114 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Extracting the invariant model from the feedback paths of digital hearing aids. Ma G; Gran F; Jacobsen F; Agerkvist F J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):350-63. PubMed ID: 21786904 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Call for calibration standard for newborn screening using auditory brainstem responses. Durrant JD; Sabo DL; Delgado RE Int J Audiol; 2007 Nov; 46(11):686-91. PubMed ID: 17978951 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Predictive measures of directional benefit part 1: estimating the directivity index on a manikin. Dittberner AB; Bentler RA Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):26-45. PubMed ID: 17204897 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Properties of an adaptive feedback equalization algorithm. Engebretson AM; French-St George M J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):8-16. PubMed ID: 8263831 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of text telephones designed for people with impaired hearing or speech. Spicer J; Schmidt R; Ward CD; Pinnington LL J Med Eng Technol; 2005; 29(3):137-44. PubMed ID: 16019883 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reciprocal measurement of acoustic feedback paths in hearing aids. Sankowsky-Rothe T; Blau M; Schepker H; Doclo S J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Oct; 138(4):EL399-404. PubMed ID: 26520351 [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. Digital feedback suppression (DFS). Clinical experiences when fitting a DFS hearing instrument on children. Henningsen LB; Dyrlund O; Bisgaard N; Brink B Scand Audiol; 1994; 23(2):117-22. PubMed ID: 8085111 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Benefit of a digital feedback suppression system for acoustical telephone communication. Latzel M; Gebhart TM; Kiessling J Scand Audiol Suppl; 2001; (52):69-72. PubMed ID: 11318487 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital instrument for measurement of aural acoustic immittance: a preliminary report. Robinette LN; Thompson DJ J Rehabil Res Dev; 1986 Apr; 23(2):34-47. PubMed ID: 3755173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]