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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20724358)

  • 1. Standard audiograms for the IEC 60118-15 measurement procedure.
    Bisgaard N; Vlaming MS; Dahlquist M
    Trends Amplif; 2010 Jun; 14(2):113-20. PubMed ID: 20724358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Speech recognition with hearing aids for 10 standard audiograms].
    Dörfler C; Hocke T; Hast A; Hoppe U
    HNO; 2020 Jan; 68(1):40-47. PubMed ID: 31728573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Speech recognition with hearing aids for 10 standard audiograms : English version.
    Dörfler C; Hocke T; Hast A; Hoppe U
    HNO; 2020 Aug; 68(Suppl 2):93-99. PubMed ID: 32211930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The relationship between high-frequency pure-tone hearing loss, hearing in noise test (HINT) thresholds, and the articulation index.
    Vermiglio AJ; Soli SD; Freed DJ; Fisher LM
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012; 23(10):779-88. PubMed ID: 23169195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A software tool for pure‑tone audiometry. Classification of audiograms for inclusion of patients in clinical trials. English version.
    Rahne T; Buthut F; Plößl S; Plontke SK
    HNO; 2016 Mar; 64 Suppl 1():S1-6. PubMed ID: 26607156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms.
    Simpson A; Hersbach AA; McDermott HJ
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Nov; 45(11):619-29. PubMed ID: 17118905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Low-frequency sensorineural loss: clinical evaluation and implications for hearing aid fitting.
    Halpin C; Thornton A; Hasso M
    Ear Hear; 1994 Feb; 15(1):71-81. PubMed ID: 8194681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures.
    Byrne D; Dillon H; Ching T; Katsch R; Keidser G
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2001 Jan; 12(1):37-51. PubMed ID: 11214977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. High-frequency audibility: the effects of audiometric configuration, stimulus type, and device.
    Kimlinger C; McCreery R; Lewis D
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Feb; 26(2):128-37. PubMed ID: 25690773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Some observations on the nature of the audiometric 4000 hz notch: data from 3430 veterans.
    Wilson RH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Jan; 22(1):23-33. PubMed ID: 21419067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of conventional and in-situ audiometry on participants with varying levels of sensorineural hearing loss.
    Kiessling J; Leifholz M; Unkel S; Pons-Kühnemann J; Jespersen CT; Pedersen JN
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Jan; 26(1):68-79. PubMed ID: 25597462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Hearing aids and cochlear damage: the case against fitting the pure tone audiogram.
    Halpin C; Rauch SD
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2009 May; 140(5):629-32. PubMed ID: 19393401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [A software tool for pure-tone audiometry: Classification of audiograms for inclusion of patients in clinical trials. German version].
    Rahne T; Buthut F; Plößl S; Plontke SK
    HNO; 2015 Dec; 63(12):857-62. PubMed ID: 26607155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Audioprofile Surfaces: The 21st Century Audiogram.
    Taylor KR; Booth KT; Azaiez H; Sloan CM; Kolbe DL; Glanz EN; Shearer AE; DeLuca AP; Anand VN; Hildebrand MS; Simpson AC; Eppsteiner RW; Scheetz TE; Braun TA; Huygen PL; Smith RJ; Casavant TL
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 2016 May; 125(5):361-8. PubMed ID: 26530094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Collection and evaluation of audiograms using computers].
    Grabner H; Lejhanec J; Neumann H; Schwetz F
    Methods Inf Med Suppl; 1972; 6():197-202. PubMed ID: 4536524
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Pure tone audiograms from hearing-impaired children. II. Predicting speech-hearing from the audiogram.
    Bamford JM; Wilson IM; Atkinson D; Bench J
    Br J Audiol; 1981 Feb; 15(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 7214068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Unwanted sounds generated with test tone presentation can spoil extended high-frequency audiometry.
    Kurakata K; Mizunami T; Matsushita K; Shiraishi K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Oct; 128(4):EL157-62. PubMed ID: 20968319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Standard cochlear implantation of adults with residual low-frequency hearing: implications for combined electro-acoustic stimulation.
    Novak MA; Black JM; Koch DB
    Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):609-14. PubMed ID: 17514064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. AMTAS(®): automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: II. air conduction audiograms in children and adults.
    Margolis RH; Frisina R; Walton JP
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jul; 50(7):434-9. PubMed ID: 21417674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Smartphone-Based Hearing Self-Assessment System Using Hearing Aids With Fast Audiometry Method.
    Chen F; Wang S; Li J; Tan H; Jia W; Wang Z
    IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst; 2019 Feb; 13(1):170-179. PubMed ID: 30371385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.