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.
544 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23357807)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. A Patient-Centered, Provider-Facilitated Approach to the Refinement of Nonlinear Frequency Compression Parameters Based on Subjective Preference Ratings of Amplified Sound Quality. Johnson EE; Light KC J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Sep; 26(8):689-702. PubMed ID: 26333877 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. NAL-NL2 Prescriptive Targets for Bone Conduction Devices With an Adaptation to Device Constraints in the Low Frequencies. Toll M; Dingemanse G Ear Hear; 2022 Nov-Dec 01; 43(6):1721-1729. PubMed ID: 35622973 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users? Smeds K Ear Hear; 2004 Apr; 25(2):159-72. PubMed ID: 15064661 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Modern prescription theory and application: realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing AIDS. Johnson EE Trends Amplif; 2013; 17(3):143-70. PubMed ID: 24253361 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Achieved Gain and Subjective Outcomes for a Wide-Bandwidth Contact Hearing Aid Fitted Using CAM2. Arbogast TL; Moore BCJ; Puria S; Dundas D; Brimacombe J; Edwards B; Carr Levy S Ear Hear; 2019; 40(3):741-756. PubMed ID: 30300158 [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. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Investigation of hearing aid fitting according to the national acoustic laboratories' prescription for non-linear hearing aids and the desired sensation level methods in Japanese speakers: a crossover-controlled trial. Furuki S; Sano H; Kurioka T; Nitta Y; Umehara S; Hara Y; Yamashita T Auris Nasus Larynx; 2023 Oct; 50(5):708-713. PubMed ID: 36792399 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Functional outcomes for speech-in-noise intelligibility of NAL-NL2 and DSL v.5 prescriptive fitting rules in hearing aid users. Portelli D; Loteta S; Ciodaro F; Salvago P; Galletti C; Freni L; Alberti G Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2024 Jun; 281(6):3227-3235. PubMed ID: 38546852 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Self-Adjustment of Hearing Aid Amplification for Lower Speech Levels: Independent Ratings, Paired Comparisons, and Speech Recognition. Perry TT; Nelson PB Am J Audiol; 2022 Jun; 31(2):305-321. PubMed ID: 35316099 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]