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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23223924)

  • 1. [Does modern speech audiometry belong in the assessment process?].
    Probst R
    HNO; 2013 Jan; 61(1):12-3. PubMed ID: 23223924
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Application of new speech intelligibility tests in silence for the assessment of acquired hearing losses].
    Sukowski H; Wagener KC; Thiele C; Uppenkamp S; Kollmeier B
    HNO; 2013 Jan; 61(1):14-24. PubMed ID: 23223925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Comparative speech audiometry examinations with compact disk and cassette tape].
    Doerr L
    HNO; 1994 Aug; 42(8):493-8. PubMed ID: 7960952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [From the expert office: pseudo-"air-bone-gap" in sensorineural hearing loss].
    Brusis T
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2010 Jan; 89(1):39-42. PubMed ID: 20058216
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A statistical causal model for the assessment of dysarthric speech and the utility of computer-based speech recognition.
    Sy BK; Horowitz DM
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1993 Dec; 40(12):1282-98. PubMed ID: 8125504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [From the expert's office: When is a hearing loss in the high tone range with coexisting hearing loss in all frequencies consequence of professional noise exposure? Frequent false evaluation of consultants, consulting physicians and professional unions].
    Brusis T
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2015 Jan; 94(1):39-41. PubMed ID: 25569465
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [From the expert testimony general practice: causality problems in differentiating occupationally-induced and non-occupational hearing loss].
    Brusis T
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2009 Jan; 88(1):45-7. PubMed ID: 19148851
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An evaluation of speech audiometry by bone conduction in hearing-impaired adults.
    Karlsen EA; Goetzinger CP
    J Aud Res; 1980 Apr; 20(2):89-95. PubMed ID: 7345063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Correlation of pure tone thresholds and hearing loss for numbers. Comparison of three calculation variations for plausibility checking in expertise].
    Braun T; Dochtermann S; Krause E; Schmidt M; Schorn K; Hempel JM
    HNO; 2011 Sep; 59(9):908-14. PubMed ID: 21732149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Experiences with the distorted Freiburg Speech Test--diagnosis and rehabilitation of hearing disorders].
    Dieroff HG; Mangoldt W
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1989 Jul; 68(7):372-8. PubMed ID: 2765049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Monaural vs binaural speech reception threshold and word discrimination scores in the hearing impaired.
    Siegenthaler BM; Craig CH
    J Aud Res; 1981 Apr; 21(2):133-5. PubMed ID: 7052803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The relation between hearing loss for pure tones and hearing loss for speech among hearing-impaired children.
    Markides A
    Br J Audiol; 1980 Nov; 14(4):115-21. PubMed ID: 7437582
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [From the expert office: The medio-cochlear hearing loss in the noise worker].
    Brusis T
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2011 Mar; 90(3):166-7. PubMed ID: 21380961
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Quantitative evaluation of hearing disorders in expert assessment. A recent recommendation for calculating the percentage of hearing loss].
    Feldmann H
    Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg); 1988 Jul; 67(7):319-25. PubMed ID: 3062285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical masking in word discrimination testing.
    Harless EL
    Arch Otolaryngol; 1983 Apr; 109(4):275. PubMed ID: 6830524
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Test-retest reliability of a distinctive feature difference test for hearing aid evaluation.
    Feeney MP; Franks JR
    Ear Hear; 1982; 3(2):59-65. PubMed ID: 7075870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Psychometric functions for the CID W-22 and NU Auditory Test No. 6. Materials spoken by the same speaker.
    Wilson RH; Oyler AL
    Ear Hear; 1997 Oct; 18(5):430-3. PubMed ID: 9360866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of half- vs full-list speech discrimination scores in a hearing-impaired geriatric population.
    Penrod JP
    J Aud Res; 1980 Jul; 20(3):181-6. PubMed ID: 7347739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Speech pattern audiometry in hearing impaired children.
    Mac Ardle B; Hazan V; Prasher D
    Br J Audiol; 1999 Dec; 33(6):383-93. PubMed ID: 10656599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Assessment of social hearing with a questionnaire in relation to average hearing loss].
    Dieroff HG; Meissner W
    Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg); 1987 Jun; 66(6):338-40. PubMed ID: 3626718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.