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 *

238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24224991)

  • 1. Effects of a transient noise reduction algorithm on speech understanding, subjective preference, and preferred gain.
    Korhonen P; Kuk F; Lau C; Keenan D; Schumacher J; Nielsen J
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Oct; 24(9):845-58. PubMed ID: 24224991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of transient noise reduction algorithms on speech intelligibility and ratings of hearing aid users.
    DiGiovanni JJ; Davlin EA; Nagaraj NK
    Am J Audiol; 2011 Dec; 20(2):140-50. PubMed ID: 21940982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Hearing impaired children's preference for, and performance with, four combinations of directional microphone and digital noise reduction technology.
    Pittman AL; Hiipakka MM
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Oct; 24(9):832-44. PubMed ID: 24224990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of a transient noise reduction strategy for hearing AIDS.
    Liu H; Zhang H; Bentler RA; Han D; Zhang L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 Sep; 23(8):606-15. PubMed ID: 22967735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Tracking of Noise Tolerance to Measure Hearing Aid Benefit.
    Kuk F; Seper E; Lau CC; Korhonen P
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Sep; 28(8):698-707. PubMed ID: 28906241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sentence recognition in noise and perceived benefit of noise reduction on the receiver and transmitter sides of a BICROS hearing aid.
    Oeding K; Valente M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(10):980-91. PubMed ID: 24384083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of a transient noise reduction algorithm on speech intelligibility in noise, noise tolerance and perceived annoyance in cochlear implant users.
    Dingemanse JG; Vroegop JL; Goedegebure A
    Int J Audiol; 2018 May; 57(5):360-369. PubMed ID: 29334269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Effect of maximum power output and noise reduction on speech recognition in noise.
    Kuk F; Peeters H; Lau C; Korhonen P
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 May; 22(5):265-73. PubMed ID: 21756842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of combined dynamic compression and single channel noise reduction for hearing aid applications.
    Kortlang S; Chen Z; Gerkmann T; Kollmeier B; Hohmann V; Ewert SD
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S43-S54. PubMed ID: 28355947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Subjective and objective evaluation of noise management algorithms.
    Peeters H; Kuk F; Lau CC; Keenan D
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2009 Feb; 20(2):89-98. PubMed ID: 19927672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Evaluation of Adaptive Noise Management Technologies for School-Age Children with Hearing Loss.
    Wolfe J; Duke M; Schafer E; Jones C; Rakita L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 May; 28(5):415-435. PubMed ID: 28534732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs) in adults in response to filtered speech stimuli.
    Carter L; Dillon H; Seymour J; Seeto M; Van Dun B
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Oct; 24(9):807-22. PubMed ID: 24224988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech intelligibility benefits of hearing AIDS at various input levels.
    Kuk F; Lau CC; Korhonen P; Crose B
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):275-88. PubMed ID: 25751695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Listener Performance with a Novel Hearing Aid Frequency Lowering Technique.
    Kirby BJ; Kopun JG; Spratford M; Mollak CM; Brennan MA; McCreery RW
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Oct; 28(9):810-822. PubMed ID: 28972470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.