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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2721829)

  • 1. Assessing speech recognition in noise for listeners with a signal processor hearing aid.
    Klein AJ
    Ear Hear; 1989 Feb; 10(1):50-7. PubMed ID: 2721829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of speech discrimination in noise and directional hearing with 2 different sound processors of a bone-anchored hearing system in adults with unilateral severe or profound sensorineural hearing loss.
    Wesarg T; Aschendorff A; Laszig R; Beck R; Schild C; Hassepass F; Kroeger S; Hocke T; Arndt S
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Aug; 34(6):1064-70. PubMed ID: 23856626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA; Hornsby BW
    Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):e52-64. PubMed ID: 23416751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Speech recognition ability in noise and its relationship to perceived hearing aid benefit.
    Cord MT; Leek MR; Walden BE
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2000 Oct; 11(9):475-83. PubMed ID: 11057731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. New developments in speech pattern element hearing aids for the profoundly deaf.
    Faulkner A; Walliker JR; Howard IS; Ball V; Fourcin AJ
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():124-35. PubMed ID: 8153558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Digital signal processing (DSP) applications for multiband loudness correction digital hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    Dillier N; Frölich T; Kompis M; Bögli H; Lai WK
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):95-109. PubMed ID: 8263833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Recognition of spectrally asynchronous speech by normal-hearing listeners and Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.
    Fu QJ; Galvin JJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Mar; 109(3):1166-72. PubMed ID: 11303930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss.
    Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of automatic signal-processing amplification on speech recognition in noise for persons with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Dempsey JJ
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 1987; 96(3 Pt 1):251-3. PubMed ID: 3605946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Audiological Results with the SAMBA Audio Processor in Comparison to the Amadé for the Vibrant Soundbridge.
    Zimmermann D; Busch S; Lenarz T; Maier H
    Audiol Neurootol; 2020; 25(3):164-172. PubMed ID: 32097930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparisons of sound processors based on osseointegrated implants in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss.
    Pfiffner F; Caversaccio MD; Kompis M
    Otol Neurotol; 2011 Jul; 32(5):728-35. PubMed ID: 21646934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions.
    Nabelek AK; Tampas JW; Burchfield SB
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Oct; 47(5):1001-11. PubMed ID: 15603458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 22874643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Performance with an adaptive frequency response hearing aid in a sample of elderly hearing-impaired listeners.
    Gordon-Salant S; Sherlock LP
    Ear Hear; 1992 Aug; 13(4):255-62. PubMed ID: 1397768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of the sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm in normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 310():36-47. PubMed ID: 24495441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Speech discrimination with an 8-channel compression hearing aid and conventional aids in background of speech-band noise.
    Yund EW; Simon HJ; Efron R
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):161-80. PubMed ID: 3430375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor.
    Mertens G; Hofkens A; Punte AK; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
    Otol Neurotol; 2015 Jan; 36(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 25406874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Pre- and Postoperative Binaural Unmasking for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners.
    Sheffield BM; Schuchman G; Bernstein JGW
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):554-567. PubMed ID: 28301390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.