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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27556363)

  • 21. The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults.
    Desjardins JL; Doherty KA
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):600-10. PubMed ID: 24622352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. How directional microphones affect speech recognition, listening effort and localisation for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Dec; 56(12):909-918. PubMed ID: 28738747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Efficacy of hearing-aid based telephone strategies for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Jan; 24(1):59-70. PubMed ID: 23231817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The Effects of Hearing Aid Directional Microphone and Noise Reduction Processing on Listening Effort in Older Adults with Hearing Loss.
    Desjardins JL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Jan; 27(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 26809324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Assessing Real-Life Benefit From Hearing-Aid Noise Management: SSQ12 Questionnaire Versus Ecological Momentary Assessment With Acoustic Data-Logging.
    Andersson KE; Andersen LS; Christensen JH; Neher T
    Am J Audiol; 2021 Mar; 30(1):93-104. PubMed ID: 33375840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Construct Validity of the Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research.
    Wu YH; Stangl E; Zhang X; Bentler RA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015; 26(10):872-84. PubMed ID: 26554491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Cochlear implant combined with a linear frequency transposing hearing aid.
    Hua H; Johansson B; Jönsson R; Magnusson L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 Oct; 23(9):722-32. PubMed ID: 23072964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Listening Effort and Speech Recognition with Frequency Compression Amplification for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss.
    Brennan MA; Lewis D; McCreery R; Kopun J; Alexander JM
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Oct; 28(9):823-837. PubMed ID: 28972471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain.
    Humes LE; Christensen LA; Bess FH; Hedley-Williams A
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1997 Jun; 40(3):666-85. PubMed ID: 9210122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Hearing Instruments for Unilateral Severe-to-Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Kitterick PT; Smith SN; Lucas L
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(5):495-507. PubMed ID: 27232073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The use of self-report measures to examine changes in perception in response to fittings using different signal processing parameters.
    Anderson M; Rallapalli V; Schoof T; Souza P; Arehart K
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):809-815. PubMed ID: 30052097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids.
    Ricketts T; Henry P; Gnewikow D
    Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):424-39. PubMed ID: 14534412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Hearing and Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation in Adult Hearing Aid Users 65 Years or Older: A Secondary Analysis of a Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.
    Wick CC; Kallogjeri D; McJunkin JL; Durakovic N; Holden LK; Herzog JA; Firszt JB; Buchman CA;
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2020 Oct; 146(10):925-932. PubMed ID: 32857114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The influence of age, hearing, and working memory on the speech comprehension benefit derived from an automatic speech recognition system.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Kessens JM; Vlaming MS; Houtgast T
    Ear Hear; 2009 Apr; 30(2):262-72. PubMed ID: 19194286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Do hearing loss and cognitive function modulate benefit from different binaural noise-reduction settings?
    Neher T; Grimm G; Hohmann V; Kollmeier B
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(3):e52-62. PubMed ID: 24351610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Assessment of Speech Understanding After Cochlear Implantation in Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.
    Buchman CA; Herzog JA; McJunkin JL; Wick CC; Durakovic N; Firszt JB; Kallogjeri D;
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2020 Oct; 146(10):916-924. PubMed ID: 32857113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.