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 *

68 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22992447)

  • 21. Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users.
    Hersbach AA; Arora K; Mauger SJ; Dawson PW
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(4):e13-23. PubMed ID: 22555182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effects of frequency modulation (FM) transmitter microphone directivity on speech perception in noise.
    Lewis MS; Crandell CC; Kreisman NV
    Am J Audiol; 2004 Jun; 13(1):16-22. PubMed ID: 15248800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.
    Mok M; Grayden D; Dowell RC; Lawrence D
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):338-51. PubMed ID: 16671848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Influence of mixing ratios of a FM-system on speech understanding of CI-users].
    Hey M; Anft D; Hocke T; Scholz G; Hessel H; Begall K
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2009 May; 88(5):315-21. PubMed ID: 19105120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults.
    Laske RD; Veraguth D; Dillier N; Binkert A; Holzmann D; Huber AM
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Apr; 30(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 19318885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
    Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The use of the Frequency Modulation System by hearing-impaired children: benefits from the family's perspective.
    Rocha BDS; Scharlach RC
    Codas; 2017 Oct; 29(6):e20160236. PubMed ID: 29069130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Frequency Modulation System and speech perception in the classroom: a systematic literature review.
    Bertachini AL; Pupo AC; Morettin M; Martinez MA; Bevilacqua MC; Moret AL; Balen SA; Jacob RT
    Codas; 2015; 27(3):292-300. PubMed ID: 26222948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Postoperative validation of bone-anchored implants in the single-sided deafness population.
    Snapp H; Angeli S; Telischi FF; Fabry D
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Apr; 33(3):291-6. PubMed ID: 22314919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System.
    Spriet A; Van Deun L; Eftaxiadis K; Laneau J; Moonen M; van Dijk B; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):62-72. PubMed ID: 17204899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Speech recognition performance of older children with cochlear implants.
    Osberger MJ; Fisher L; Zimmerman-Phillips S; Geier L; Barker MJ
    Am J Otol; 1998 Mar; 19(2):152-7. PubMed ID: 9520050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The effects of high-frequency amplification on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users with varying degrees of high-frequency hearing loss.
    Plyler PN; Fleck EL
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Jun; 49(3):616-27. PubMed ID: 16787899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The effect of front-end processing on cochlear implant performance of children.
    Wolfe J; Schafer EC; John A; Hudson M
    Otol Neurotol; 2011 Jun; 32(4):533-8. PubMed ID: 21436756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 hearing aid fitting methods.
    Moore BC; Sęk A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 22878351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Masking release and modulation interference in cochlear implant and simulation listeners.
    Jin SH; Nie Y; Nelson P
    Am J Audiol; 2013 Jun; 22(1):135-46. PubMed ID: 23800809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Bimodal hearing and speech perception with a competing talker.
    Pyschny V; Landwehr M; Hahn M; Walger M; von Wedel H; Meister H
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2011 Oct; 54(5):1400-15. PubMed ID: 21498577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Speech recognition in noise using bilateral open-fit hearing aids: the limited benefit of directional microphones and noise reduction.
    Magnusson L; Claesson A; Persson M; Tengstrand T
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jan; 52(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 22928919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids.
    Davidson LS
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):493-507. PubMed ID: 16957500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Speech-perception aids for hearing-impaired people: current status and needed research. Working Group on Communication Aids for the Hearing-Impaired.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1991 Aug; 90(2 Pt 1):637-83. PubMed ID: 1939883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.