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 *

98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18326151)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The Effects of Nonlinear Frequency Compression and Digital Noise Reduction on Word Recognition and Satisfaction Ratings in Noise in Adult Hearing Aid Users.
    Plyler PN; Tardy B; Hedrick M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Feb; 30(2):103-114. PubMed ID: 30461384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of Threshold Adjustment on Speech Perception in Nucleus Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Busby PA; Arora K
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):303-11. PubMed ID: 26671316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Improvement of speech perception in quiet and in noise without decreasing localization abilities with the bone conduction device Bonebridge.
    Weiss R; Leinung M; Baumann U; Weißgerber T; Rader T; Stöver T
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2017 May; 274(5):2107-2115. PubMed ID: 28032241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Speech intelligibility benefits of hearing AIDS at various input levels.
    Kuk F; Lau CC; Korhonen P; Crose B
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):275-88. PubMed ID: 25751695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Effects of a transient noise reduction algorithm on speech understanding, subjective preference, and preferred gain.
    Korhonen P; Kuk F; Lau C; Keenan D; Schumacher J; Nielsen J
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Oct; 24(9):845-58. PubMed ID: 24224991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 22874643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Experiments with classroom FM amplification.
    Boothroyd A; Iglehart F
    Ear Hear; 1998 Jun; 19(3):202-17. PubMed ID: 9657595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. An examination of the practicality of the simplex procedure.
    Preminger JE; Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Walters D; Levitt H
    Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):177-93. PubMed ID: 10890726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of the NAL(R) and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids.
    Peters RW; Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
    Br J Audiol; 2000 Feb; 34(1):21-36. PubMed ID: 10759075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.