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 *

416 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24447234)

  • 21. Evaluation of the NAL Dynamic Conversations Test in older listeners with hearing loss.
    Best V; Keidser G; Freeston K; Buchholz JM
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):221-229. PubMed ID: 28826285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Predicting three-month and 12-month post-fitting real-world hearing-aid outcome using pre-fitting acceptable noise level (ANL).
    Wu YH; Ho HC; Hsiao SH; Brummet RB; Chipara O
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(5):285-94. PubMed ID: 26878163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?
    Huber R; Bisitz T; Gerkmann T; Kiessling J; Meister H; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S55-S61. PubMed ID: 28112001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Hearing aid fitting and fine-tuning based on estimated individual traits.
    Völker C; Ernst SMA; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S139-S145. PubMed ID: 27873543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Hearing-aid users' voices: a factor that could affect directional benefit.
    Wu YH; Stangl E; Bentler RA
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Nov; 52(11):789-94. PubMed ID: 23777478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Danish reading span data from 283 hearing-aid users, including a sub-group analysis of their relationship to speech-in-noise performance.
    Borch Petersen E; Lunner T; Vestergaard MD; Sundewall Thorén E
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(4):254-61. PubMed ID: 26836955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Focusing on Positive Listening Experiences Improves Speech Intelligibility in Experienced Hearing Aid Users.
    Lelic D; Nielsen LLA; Pedersen AK; Neher T
    Trends Hear; 2024; 28():23312165241246616. PubMed ID: 38656770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Benefit from non-linear frequency compression hearing aids in a clinical setting: the effects of duration of experience and severity of high-frequency hearing loss.
    Hopkins K; Khanom M; Dickinson AM; Munro KJ
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Apr; 53(4):219-28. PubMed ID: 24617592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Tailoring auditory training to patient needs with single and multiple talkers: transfer-appropriate gains on a four-choice discrimination test.
    Barcroft J; Sommers MS; Tye-Murray N; Mauzé E; Schroy C; Spehar B
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):802-8. PubMed ID: 21929377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Hearing less.
    Tsai A
    Diabetes Forecast; 2014 Dec; 67(12):28-30. PubMed ID: 25872362
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Hearing aid technology: model-based concepts and assessment.
    Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S1-S2. PubMed ID: 29338464
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Hearing aid technology: model-based concepts and assessment.
    Johnson EE
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S29-S30. PubMed ID: 28635502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Preliminary comparison of bone-anchored hearing instruments and a dental device as treatments for unilateral hearing loss.
    Moore BC; Popelka GR
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Oct; 52(10):678-86. PubMed ID: 23859058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Measurement and prediction of the acceptable noise level for single-microphone noise reduction algorithms.
    Fredelake S; Holube I; Schlueter A; Hansen M
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Apr; 51(4):299-308. PubMed ID: 22316007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: perception and prediction.
    Wu YH; Stangl E
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):333-41. PubMed ID: 23334355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Virtual acoustic environments for comprehensive evaluation of model-based hearing devices.
    Grimm G; Luberadzka J; Hohmann V
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S112-S117. PubMed ID: 27813439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Acceptance of noise growth patterns in hearing aid users.
    Freyaldenhoven MC; Plyler PN; Thelin JW; Muenchen RA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Feb; 51(1):126-35. PubMed ID: 18230860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Evaluation of a multi-channel algorithm for reducing transient sounds.
    Keshavarzi M; Baer T; Moore BCJ
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Aug; 57(8):624-631. PubMed ID: 29764254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Modifications of the MUlti stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA) for use in audiology.
    Völker C; Bisitz T; Huber R; Kollmeier B; Ernst SMA
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S92-S104. PubMed ID: 27598985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effect of companding on speech recognition in quiet and noise for listeners with ANSD.
    Narne VK; Barman A; Deepthi M
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Feb; 53(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 24237041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.