213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23203416)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in Hearing Aids Fit to Children with Severe or Profound Hearing Loss: Goodness of Fit-to-Targets, Impacts on Predicted Loudness and Speech Intelligibility.
Ching TY; Quar TK; Johnson EE; Newall P; Sharma M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):260-74. PubMed ID: 25751694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing-aid fitting: predicted speech intelligibility and loudness.
Ching TY; Johnson EE; Hou S; Dillon H; Zhang V; Burns L; van Buynder P; Wong A; Flynn C
Int J Audiol; 2013 Dec; 52 Suppl 2(0 2):S29-38. PubMed ID: 24350692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device.
Keidser G; Grant F
Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):501-15. PubMed ID: 11770672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Integrating cognitive and peripheral factors in predicting hearing-aid processing effectiveness.
Kates JM; Arehart KH; Souza PE
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Dec; 134(6):4458. PubMed ID: 25669257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Hearing aid fitting and developmental outcomes of children fit according to either the NAL or DSL prescription: fit-to-target, audibility, speech and language abilities.
Ching TYC; Zhang VW; Johnson EE; Van Buynder P; Hou S; Burns L; Button L; Flynn C; McGhie K
Int J Audiol; 2018 May; 57(sup2):S41-S54. PubMed ID: 28971727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Preliminary evaluation of a novel non-linear frequency compression scheme for use in children.
Wolfe J; Duke M; Schafer EC; Rehmann J; Jha S; Allegro Baumann S; John A; Jones C
Int J Audiol; 2017 Dec; 56(12):976-988. PubMed ID: 28851244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Initial development of a temporal-envelope-preserving nonlinear hearing aid prescription using a genetic algorithm.
Sabin AT; Souza PE
Trends Amplif; 2013 Jun; 17(2):94-107. PubMed ID: 24028890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparing Two Hearing Aid Fitting Algorithms for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.
Vroegop JL; Homans NC; van der Schroeff MP; Goedegebure A
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):98-106. PubMed ID: 29782445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of real-world preferences and performance of hearing aids fitted according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures in children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss.
Quar TK; Ching TY; Newall P; Sharma M
Int J Audiol; 2013 May; 52(5):322-32. PubMed ID: 23570290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Potential Consequences of Spectral and Binaural Loudness Summation for Bilateral Hearing Aid Fitting.
van Beurden M; Boymans M; van Geleuken M; Oetting D; Kollmeier B; Dreschler WA
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518805690. PubMed ID: 30353784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
