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 *

330 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26881981)

  • 21. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: Part II--field tests.
    Wu YH; Bentler RA
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):35-46. PubMed ID: 19773657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Potential benefits and limitations of three types of directional processing in hearing aids.
    Picou EM; Aspell E; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(3):339-52. PubMed ID: 24518429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Style preference survey: a report on the psychometric properties and a cross-validation experiment.
    Smith SL; Ricketts T; McArdle RA; Chisolm TH; Alexander G; Bratt G
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Feb; 24(2):89-104. PubMed ID: 23357803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Hearing aid use in nursing homes. Part 2: Barriers to effective utilization of hearing AIDS.
    Cohen-Mansfield J; Taylor JW
    J Am Med Dir Assoc; 2004; 5(5):289-96. PubMed ID: 15357886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Acclimatization to hearing aids.
    Dawes P; Munro KJ; Kalluri S; Edwards B
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):203-12. PubMed ID: 24351612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Hearing aids.
    Klein AJ; Weber PC
    Med Clin North Am; 1999 Jan; 83(1):139-51. PubMed ID: 9927966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Trends and Predictors of Longitudinal Hearing Aid Use for Children Who Are Hard of Hearing.
    Walker EA; McCreery RW; Spratford M; Oleson JJ; Van Buren J; Bentler R; Roush P; Moeller MP
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36 Suppl 1(0 1):38S-47S. PubMed ID: 26731157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Exploring the Effects of the Narrative Embodied in the Hearing Aid Fitting Process on Treatment Outcomes.
    Naylor G; Öberg M; Wänström G; Lunner T
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(5):517-26. PubMed ID: 25811932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. What's in a name? A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of non-medical amplification devices in adults with mild and moderate hearing losses.
    Maidment DW; Nakano K; Bennett RJ; Goodwin MV; Ferguson MA
    Int J Audiol; 2024 Feb; ():1-10. PubMed ID: 38421265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms.
    Johnson JA; Cox RM; Alexander GC
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):47-55. PubMed ID: 19692903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A Follow-Up Clinical Trial Evaluating the Consumer-Decides Service Delivery Model.
    Humes LE; Kinney DL; Main AK; Rogers SE
    Am J Audiol; 2019 Mar; 28(1):69-84. PubMed ID: 30938563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Patient satisfaction with bilateral bone-anchored hearing aids: the Birmingham experience.
    Dutt SN; McDermott AL; Burrell SP; Cooper HR; Reid AP; Proops DW
    J Laryngol Otol Suppl; 2002; (28):37-46. PubMed ID: 12138790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Tinnitus Management: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Extended-Wear Hearing Aids, Conventional Hearing Aids, and Combination Instruments.
    Henry JA; McMillan G; Dann S; Bennett K; Griest S; Theodoroff S; Silverman SP; Whichard S; Saunders G
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Jun; 28(6):546-561. PubMed ID: 28590898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Bilateral Bone-anchored Hearing Aid: impact on quality of life measured with the Glasgow Benefit Inventory.
    Ho EC; Monksfield P; Egan E; Reid A; Proops D
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Oct; 30(7):891-6. PubMed ID: 19692937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: Part I--laboratory tests.
    Wu YH; Bentler RA
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):22-34. PubMed ID: 19864954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of speech recognition with adaptive digital and FM remote microphone hearing assistance technology by listeners who use hearing aids.
    Thibodeau L
    Am J Audiol; 2014 Jun; 23(2):201-10. PubMed ID: 24699929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of a Bluetooth-implemented hearing aid on speech recognition performance: subjective and objective measurement.
    Kim MB; Chung WH; Choi J; Hong SH; Cho YS; Park G; Lee S
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 2014 Jun; 123(6):395-401. PubMed ID: 24687593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Digital processing technology for bone-anchored hearing aids: randomised comparison of two devices in hearing aid users with mixed or conductive hearing loss.
    Hill-Feltham P; Roberts SA; Gladdis R
    J Laryngol Otol; 2014 Feb; 128(2):119-27. PubMed ID: 24524414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A naturalistic approach to assessing hearing aid candidacy and motivating hearing aid use.
    Walden TC; Walden BE; Summers V; Grant KW
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2009; 20(10):607-20. PubMed ID: 20503799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.