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.
343 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26134722)
1. The Effect of a High Upper Input Limiting Level on Word Recognition in Noise, Sound Quality Preferences, and Subjective Ratings of Real-World Performance. Oeding K; Valente M J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Jun; 26(6):547-62. PubMed ID: 26134722 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise. Kuk F; Keenan D; Korhonen P; Lau CC J Am Acad Audiol; 2009 Sep; 20(8):465-79. PubMed ID: 19764167 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Differences in Word and Phoneme Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Recognition in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes between Manufacturer First-Fit and Hearing Aids Programmed to NAL-NL2 Using Real-Ear Measures. Valente M; Oeding K; Brockmeyer A; Smith S; Kallogjeri D J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Sep; 29(8):706-721. PubMed ID: 30222541 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Evaluation of a BICROS System with a Directional Microphone in the Receiver and Transmitter. Valente M; Oeding K J Am Acad Audiol; 2015; 26(10):856-71. PubMed ID: 26554490 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Firszt JB; Holden LK; Skinner MW; Tobey EA; Peterson A; Gaggl W; Runge-Samuelson CL; Wackym PA Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):375-87. PubMed ID: 15292777 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids. Davidson LS Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):493-507. PubMed ID: 16957500 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Ecological Momentary Assessment: A Field Evaluation of Subjective Ratings of Speech in Noise. Jenstad LM; Singh G; Boretzki M; DeLongis A; Fichtl E; Ho R; Huen M; Meyer V; Pang F; Stephenson E Ear Hear; 2021 Nov-Dec 01; 42(6):1770-1781. PubMed ID: 34010249 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing AIDS. Shanks JE; Wilson RH; Larson V; Williams D Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):280-90. PubMed ID: 12195170 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Difference between the default telecoil (t-coil) and programmed microphone frequency response in behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids. Putterman DB; Valente M J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):366-78. PubMed ID: 22533979 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Tracking of Noise Tolerance to Predict Hearing Aid Satisfaction in Loud Noisy Environments. Seper E; Kuk F; Korhonen P; Slugocki C J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Apr; 30(4):302-314. PubMed ID: 30461409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The Effects of Nonlinear Frequency Compression and Digital Noise Reduction on Word Recognition and Satisfaction Ratings in Noise in Adult Hearing Aid Users. Plyler PN; Tardy B; Hedrick M J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Feb; 30(2):103-114. PubMed ID: 30461384 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]