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 *

196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23172008)

  • 1. Effects of bandwidth, compression speed, and gain at high frequencies on preferences for amplified music.
    Moore BC
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Sep; 16(3):159-72. PubMed ID: 23172008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Musicians and hearing aid design--is your hearing instrument being overworked?
    Schmidt M
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Sep; 16(3):140-5. PubMed ID: 23258617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments.
    Keidser G; Dillon H; Carter L; O'Brien A
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Dec; 16(4):211-23. PubMed ID: 23203416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Determination of preferred parameters for multichannel compression using individually fitted simulated hearing AIDS and paired comparisons.
    Moore BC; Füllgrabe C; Stone MA
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):556-68. PubMed ID: 21285878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Nonlinear frequency compression: effects on sound quality ratings of speech and music.
    Parsa V; Scollie S; Glista D; Seelisch A
    Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):54-68. PubMed ID: 23539261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Analog-to-digital conversion to accommodate the dynamics of live music in hearing instruments.
    Hockley NS; Bahlmann F; Fulton B
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Sep; 16(3):146-58. PubMed ID: 23258618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Music and hearing aids--an introduction.
    Chasin M
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Sep; 16(3):136-9. PubMed ID: 23258616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dynamic Range Across Music Genres and the Perception of Dynamic Compression in Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
    Kirchberger M; Russo FA
    Trends Hear; 2016 Feb; 20():. PubMed ID: 26868955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of the CAM2A and NAL-NL2 hearing-aid fitting methods for participants with a wide range of hearing losses.
    Moore BC; Sęk A
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(2):93-100. PubMed ID: 26470732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Editorial.
    Chasin M; Hockley N
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Sep; 16(3):135. PubMed ID: 23258615
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Fitting recommendations and clinical benefit associated with use of the NAL-NL2 hearing-aid prescription in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients.
    English R; Plant K; Maciejczyk M; Cowan R
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S45-50. PubMed ID: 26853233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Preferred delay and phase-frequency response of open-canal hearing aids with music at low insertion gain.
    Zakis JA; Fulton B; Steele BR
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Dec; 51(12):906-13. PubMed ID: 23025794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Musician and Nonmusician Hearing Aid Setting Preferences for Music and Speech Stimuli.
    D'Onofrio KL; Gifford RH; Ricketts TA
    Am J Audiol; 2019 Jun; 28(2):333-347. PubMed ID: 31091118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Development and psychometric properties of the sound preference and hearing habits questionnaire (SP-HHQ).
    Meis M; Huber R; Fischer RL; Schulte M; Spilski J; Meister H
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S118-S129. PubMed ID: 27875658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The performance of an automatic acoustic-based program classifier compared to hearing aid users' manual selection of listening programs.
    Searchfield GD; Linford T; Kobayashi K; Crowhen D; Latzel M
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):201-212. PubMed ID: 29069954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility.
    Hansen M
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):369-80. PubMed ID: 12195179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.