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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18696020)

  • 41. Audiological Results with the SAMBA Audio Processor in Comparison to the Amadé for the Vibrant Soundbridge.
    Zimmermann D; Busch S; Lenarz T; Maier H
    Audiol Neurootol; 2020; 25(3):164-172. PubMed ID: 32097930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. [Speech audiometry in expert assessment of hearing impairment].
    Batsoulis C; Lesinski-Schiedat A
    HNO; 2017 Mar; 65(3):203-210. PubMed ID: 27689228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. [Speech audiometric outcome parameters in clinical trials on hearing improvement].
    Müller J; Plontke SK; Rahne T
    HNO; 2017 Mar; 65(3):211-218. PubMed ID: 27933349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Comparing Binaural Pre-processing Strategies III: Speech Intelligibility of Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Völker C; Warzybok A; Ernst SM
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26721922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. [Characteristics, advantages, and limits of matrix tests].
    Brand T; Wagener KC
    HNO; 2017 Mar; 65(3):182-188. PubMed ID: 27538937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Speech audiometry in Estonia: Estonian words in noise (EWIN) test.
    Veispak A; Jansen S; Ghesquière P; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Aug; 54(8):573-8. PubMed ID: 25812043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [Correlation between the APHAB questionnaire and the Freiburg monosyllabic test without + with noise].
    Löhler J; Sippel M; Walther LE; Schönweiler R
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2022 Apr; 101(4):304-309. PubMed ID: 34157776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Auditory detection, discrimination and speech processing in ageing, noise-sensitive and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Abel SM; Krever EM; Alberti PW
    Scand Audiol; 1990; 19(1):43-54. PubMed ID: 2336540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Speech Audiometry at Home: Automated Listening Tests via Smart Speakers With Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Ooster J; Krueger M; Bach JH; Wagener KC; Kollmeier B; Meyer BT
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520970011. PubMed ID: 33272109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Use of a monosyllabic adaptive speech test (MAST) with young children.
    Mackie K; Dermody P
    J Speech Hear Res; 1986 Jun; 29(2):275-81. PubMed ID: 3724121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. How much does language proficiency by non-native listeners influence speech audiometric tests in noise?
    Warzybok A; Brand T; Wagener KC; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():88-99. PubMed ID: 26344170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. [Speech intelligibility in noise at presbycusis].
    Dlouhá O; Vokřál J; Černý L
    Cas Lek Cesk; 2017; 156(4):183-186. PubMed ID: 28862007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Noise-induced hearing loss and the comprehension of speech in noise.
    Quist-Hanssen S; Thorud E; Aasand G
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1979; 360():90-5. PubMed ID: 287364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels.
    Studebaker GA; Sherbecoe RL; McDaniel DM; Gwaltney CA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Apr; 105(4):2431-44. PubMed ID: 10212424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Intelligibility of speech in noise at high presentation levels: effects of hearing loss and frequency region.
    Summers V; Cord MT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Aug; 122(2):1130-7. PubMed ID: 17672659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. [The Oldenburg children's rhyme test during speech simulating noise disturbance (Regensburg variant). Modification of the test and normal values for the ages 7-10 years].
    Steffens T
    HNO; 2003 Dec; 51(12):1012-8. PubMed ID: 14647933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.
    Firszt JB; Holden LK; Skinner MW; Tobey EA; Peterson A; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Wackym PA
    Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):375-87. PubMed ID: 15292777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Development of the Continuous Number Identification Test (CNIT): feasibility of dynamic assessment of speech intelligibility.
    Ozmeral EJ; Hoover EC; Gabbidon P; Eddins DA
    Int J Audiol; 2020 Jun; 59(6):434-442. PubMed ID: 32003257
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Relations Between the Intelligibility of Speech in Noise and Psychophysical Measures of Hearing Measured in Four Languages Using the Auditory Profile Test Battery.
    Van Esch TE; Dreschler WA
    Trends Hear; 2015 Dec; 19():. PubMed ID: 26647417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.