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 *

380 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22031676)

  • 1. Telecoil-mode hearing aid compatibility performance requirements for wireless and cordless handsets: magnetic signal levels.
    Julstrom S; Kozma-Spytek L; Isabelle S
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Sep; 22(8):515-27. PubMed ID: 22031676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Telecoil-mode hearing aid compatibility performance requirements for wireless and cordless handsets: magnetic signal-to-noise.
    Julstrom S; Kozma-Spytek L; Isabelle S
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Sep; 22(8):528-41. PubMed ID: 22031677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Subjective assessment of cochlear implant users' signal-to-noise ratio requirements for different levels of wireless device usability.
    Julstrom S; Kozma-Spytek L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014; 25(10):952-68. PubMed ID: 25514448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Difference in Speech Recognition between a Default and Programmed Telecoil Program.
    Ledda KT; Valente M; Oeding K; Kallogjeri D
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Jun; 30(6):502-515. PubMed ID: 30461405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Efficacy of hearing-aid based telephone strategies for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Jan; 24(1):59-70. PubMed ID: 23231817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Tri-axial telecoil hearing aid for improved connection to public induction loops.
    Riehle TH; Knuesel RJ; Lichter PA; Panescu D
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2015; 2015():97-100. PubMed ID: 26736209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 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. 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. Wireless and acoustic hearing with bone-anchored hearing devices.
    Bosman AJ; Mylanus EA; Hol MK; Snik AF
    Int J Audiol; 2015 Jul; 55(7):419-24. PubMed ID: 27176657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Performance characteristics for hearing aid microphone versus telephone and telephone/telecoil reception modes.
    Tannahill JC
    J Speech Hear Res; 1983 Jun; 26(2):195-201. PubMed ID: 6887805
    [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. Test-retest reliability of probe-microphone verification in children fitted with open and closed hearing aid tips.
    Kim H; Ricketts TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(7):635-42. PubMed ID: 24047950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An evaluation of digital cellular handsets by hearing aid users.
    Kozma-Spytek L; Harkins J
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2005; 42(4 Suppl 2):145-56. PubMed ID: 16470470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Compression-dependent differences in hearing aid gain between speech and nonspeech input signals.
    Henning RW; Bentler R
    Ear Hear; 2005 Aug; 26(4):409-22. PubMed ID: 16079635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Benefits in Speech Recognition in Noise with Remote Wireless Microphones in Group Settings.
    Thibodeau LM
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Jun; 31(6):404-411. PubMed ID: 31758679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fitting Frequency-Lowering Signal Processing Applying the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: Updates and Protocols.
    Scollie S; Glista D; Seto J; Dunn A; Schuett B; Hawkins M; Pourmand N; Parsa V
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Mar; 27(3):219-236. PubMed ID: 26967363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of a "direct-comparison" approach to automatic switching in omnidirectional/directional hearing aids.
    Summers V; Grant KW; Walden BE; Cord MT; Surr RK; Elhilali M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008 Oct; 19(9):708-20. PubMed ID: 19418710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Benefit of Remote Microphones Using Four Wireless Protocols.
    Rodemerk KS; Galster JA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Sep; 26(8):724-731. PubMed ID: 26333880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.