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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26460797)

  • 1. Adult hearing-aid users with cochlear dead regions restricted to high frequencies: Implications for amplification.
    Pepler A; Lewis K; Munro KJ
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(1):20-9. PubMed ID: 26460797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Implications of high-frequency cochlear dead regions for fitting hearing aids to adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss.
    Cox RM; Johnson JA; Alexander GC
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):573-87. PubMed ID: 22555183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cochlear dead regions in typical hearing aid candidates: prevalence and implications for use of high-frequency speech cues.
    Cox RM; Alexander GC; Johnson J; Rivera I
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):339-48. PubMed ID: 21522068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of low-pass filtering on identification of nonsense syllables in quiet by school-age children with and without cochlear dead regions.
    Malicka AN; Munro KJ; Baer T; Baker RJ; Moore BC
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(4):458-69. PubMed ID: 23337997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. No evidence for enhanced processing of speech that is low-pass filtered near the edge frequency of cochlear dead regions in children.
    Malicka AN; Wilson WJ; Baer T; Munro KJ; Baker RJ; Miluzzi D; Moore BCJ
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Aug; 57(8):632-637. PubMed ID: 29688099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Limiting high-frequency hearing aid gain in listeners with and without suspected cochlear dead regions.
    Mackersie CL; Crocker TL; Davis RA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2004; 15(7):498-507. PubMed ID: 15484599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Cochlear dead regions constrain the benefit of combining acoustic stimulation with electric stimulation.
    Zhang T; Dorman MF; Gifford R; Moore BC
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(4):410-7. PubMed ID: 24950254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Quality ratings of frequency-compressed speech by participants with extensive high-frequency dead regions in the cochlea.
    Salorio-Corbetto M; Baer T; Moore BC
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Feb; 56(2):106-120. PubMed ID: 27724057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparing Two Hearing Aid Fitting Algorithms for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.
    Vroegop JL; Homans NC; van der Schroeff MP; Goedegebure A
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):98-106. PubMed ID: 29782445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of hearing aid settings for electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Dillon MT; Buss E; Pillsbury HC; Adunka OF; Buchman CA; Adunka MC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):133-40. PubMed ID: 24828214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A "Goldilocks" Approach to Hearing Aid Self-Fitting: Ear-Canal Output and Speech Intelligibility Index.
    Mackersie C; Boothroyd A; Lithgow A
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):107-115. PubMed ID: 29894379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies.
    Baer T; Moore BC; Kluk K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Sep; 112(3 Pt 1):1133-44. PubMed ID: 12243160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Hearing Aid Treatment for Patients with Mixed Hearing Loss. Part II: Speech Recognition in Comparison to Direct Acoustic Cochlear Stimulation.
    Wardenga N; Snik AFM; Kludt E; Waldmann B; Lenarz T; Maier H
    Audiol Neurootol; 2020; 25(3):133-142. PubMed ID: 32007992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of bimodal benefit for the use of DSL v5.0 and NAL-NL2 in cochlear implant listeners.
    Digeser FM; Engler M; Hoppe U
    Int J Audiol; 2020 May; 59(5):383-391. PubMed ID: 31809219
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Amplification Self-Adjustment: Controls and Repeatability.
    Boothroyd A; Retana J; Mackersie CL
    Ear Hear; 2022; 43(3):808-821. PubMed ID: 34653029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Predictors of Hearing-Aid Outcomes.
    Lopez-Poveda EA; Johannesen PT; Pérez-González P; Blanco JL; Kalluri S; Edwards B
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517730526. PubMed ID: 28929903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.