348 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19358456)
1. Using trainable hearing aids to examine real-world preferred gain.
Mueller HG; Hornsby BW; Weber JE
J Am Acad Audiol; 2008; 19(10):758-73. PubMed ID: 19358456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users?
Smeds K
Ear Hear; 2004 Apr; 25(2):159-72. PubMed ID: 15064661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An initial-fit comparison of two generic hearing aid prescriptive methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to individuals having mild to moderately severe high-frequency hearing loss.
Johnson EE
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Feb; 24(2):138-50. PubMed ID: 23357807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in Hearing Aids Fit to Children with Severe or Profound Hearing Loss: Goodness of Fit-to-Targets, Impacts on Predicted Loudness and Speech Intelligibility.
Ching TY; Quar TK; Johnson EE; Newall P; Sharma M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):260-74. PubMed ID: 25751694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility.
Johnson EE; Dillon H
J Am Acad Audiol; 2011; 22(7):441-59. PubMed ID: 21993050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Transitioning hearing aid users with severe and profound loss to a new gain/frequency response: benefit, perception, and acceptance.
Convery E; Keidser G
J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Mar; 22(3):168-80. PubMed ID: 21545769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Differences in Word and Phoneme Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Recognition in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes between Manufacturer First-Fit and Hearing Aids Programmed to NAL-NL2 Using Real-Ear Measures.
Valente M; Oeding K; Brockmeyer A; Smith S; Kallogjeri D
J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Sep; 29(8):706-721. PubMed ID: 30222541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effects of Modified Hearing Aid Fittings on Loudness and Tone Quality for Different Acoustic Scenes.
Moore BC; Baer T; Ives DT; Marriage J; Salorio-Corbetto M
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(4):483-91. PubMed ID: 26928003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Achieved Gain and Subjective Outcomes for a Wide-Bandwidth Contact Hearing Aid Fitted Using CAM2.
Arbogast TL; Moore BCJ; Puria S; Dundas D; Brimacombe J; Edwards B; Carr Levy S
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(3):741-756. PubMed ID: 30300158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of real-world preferences and performance of hearing aids fitted according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures in children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss.
Quar TK; Ching TY; Newall P; Sharma M
Int J Audiol; 2013 May; 52(5):322-32. PubMed ID: 23570290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Investigation of hearing aid fitting according to the national acoustic laboratories' prescription for non-linear hearing aids and the desired sensation level methods in Japanese speakers: a crossover-controlled trial.
Furuki S; Sano H; Kurioka T; Nitta Y; Umehara S; Hara Y; Yamashita T
Auris Nasus Larynx; 2023 Oct; 50(5):708-713. PubMed ID: 36792399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Hearing aids in the real world: use of multimemory and volume controls.
Banerjee S
J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Jun; 22(6):359-74. PubMed ID: 21864473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit.
Abrams HB; Chisolm TH; McManus M; McArdle R
J Am Acad Audiol; 2012; 23(10):768-78. PubMed ID: 23169194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The preferred number of channels (one, two, or four) in NAL-NL1 prescribed wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) devices.
Keidser G; Grant F
Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):516-27. PubMed ID: 11770673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF method for fitting hearing aids with multichannel amplitude compression.
Moore BC; Füllgrabe C
Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):657-66. PubMed ID: 20526199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Implications of high-frequency cochlear dead regions for fitting hearing aids to adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss.
Cox RM; Johnson JA; Alexander GC
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):573-87. PubMed ID: 22555183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Difference between the default telecoil (t-coil) and programmed microphone frequency response in behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids.
Putterman DB; Valente M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):366-78. PubMed ID: 22533979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
