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 *

65 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20017682)

  • 1. Environmental noise reduction configuration: Effects on preferences, satisfaction, and speech understanding.
    Zakis JA; Hau J; Blamey PJ
    Int J Audiol; 2009 Dec; 48(12):853-67. PubMed ID: 20017682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of the base line response on self-adjustments of hearing aid gain.
    Keidser G; Dillon H; Convery E
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Sep; 124(3):1668-81. PubMed ID: 19045657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Speech understanding in quiet and in noise with the bone-anchored hearing aids Baha Compact and Baha Divino.
    Kompis M; Krebs M; Häusler R
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2007 Aug; 127(8):829-35. PubMed ID: 17762993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with cochlear implants.
    Fitzpatrick EM; Séguin C; Schramm DR; Armstrong S; Chénier J
    Ear Hear; 2009 Oct; 30(5):590-9. PubMed ID: 19561509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [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. Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S).
    Cameron S; Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):196-211. PubMed ID: 17496671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of performance on the hearing in noise test using directional microphones and digital noise reduction algorithms.
    Nordrum S; Erler S; Garstecki D; Dhar S
    Am J Audiol; 2006 Jun; 15(1):81-91. PubMed ID: 16803795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Binaural noise-reduction hearing aid scheme with real-time processing in the frequency domain.
    Kollmeier B; Peissig J; Hohmann V
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():28-38. PubMed ID: 8153562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Clinical study of speech understanding in noise].
    Tremblay C; Picard M; Barbarosie T; Banville R
    Audiology; 1991; 30(4):212-40. PubMed ID: 1755750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
    Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of low-frequency gain and venting effects on the benefit derived from directionality and noise reduction in hearing aids.
    Keidser G; Carter L; Chalupper J; Dillon H
    Int J Audiol; 2007 Oct; 46(10):554-68. PubMed ID: 17922345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Speech-clarity judgments of hearing-aid-processed speech in noise: differing polar patterns and acoustic environments.
    Amlani AM; Rakerd B; Punch JL
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Jun; 45(6):319-30. PubMed ID: 16777778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.
    Baer T; Moore BC; Gatehouse S
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):49-72. PubMed ID: 8263829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech reception thresholds in noise and self-reported hearing disability in a general adult population.
    Smits C; Kramer SE; Houtgast T
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):538-49. PubMed ID: 16957503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids.
    Luts H; Eneman K; Wouters J; Schulte M; Vormann M; Buechler M; Dillier N; Houben R; Dreschler WA; Froehlich M; Puder H; Grimm G; Hohmann V; Leijon A; Lombard A; Mauler D; Spriet A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Mar; 127(3):1491-505. PubMed ID: 20329849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and its relationship to aided reported handicap and hearing aid satisfaction.
    Saunders GH; Forsline A
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):229-42. PubMed ID: 16672792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing.
    Strelcyk O; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3328-45. PubMed ID: 19425674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.