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 *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27951738)

  • 21. The effect of tone-vocoding on spatial release from masking for old, hearing-impaired listeners.
    King A; Hopkins K; Plack CJ; Pontoppidan NH; Bramsløw L; Hietkamp RK; Vatti M; Hafez A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2591. PubMed ID: 28464637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Prescription of hearing-aid output for tinnitus relief.
    Shekhawat GS; Searchfield GD; Kobayashi K; Stinear CM
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Sep; 52(9):617-25. PubMed ID: 23859059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Gated auditory speech perception in elderly hearing aid users and elderly normal-hearing individuals: effects of hearing impairment and cognitive capacity.
    Moradi S; Lidestam B; Hällgren M; Rönnberg J
    Trends Hear; 2014 Jul; 18():. PubMed ID: 25085610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Binaural dichotic presentation to reduce the effects of spectral masking in moderate bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
    Kulkarni PN; Pandey PC; Jangamashetti DS
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Apr; 51(4):334-44. PubMed ID: 22201526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Analysis of compressive properties of the BioAid hearing aid algorithm.
    Clark NR; Lecluyse W; Jürgens T
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S130-S138. PubMed ID: 28942716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?
    Huber R; Bisitz T; Gerkmann T; Kiessling J; Meister H; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S55-S61. PubMed ID: 28112001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. What Keeps Older Adults With Hearing Impairment From Adopting Hearing Aids?
    Tahden MAS; Gieseler A; Meis M; Wagener KC; Colonius H
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518809737. PubMed ID: 30451099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Auditory acclimatization and hearing aids: late auditory evoked potentials and speech recognition following unilateral and bilateral amplification.
    Dawes P; Munro KJ; Kalluri S; Edwards B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jun; 135(6):3560-9. PubMed ID: 24907819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Observations from a musician with hearing loss.
    Einhorn R
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Sep; 16(3):179-82. PubMed ID: 23203415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Masking release for hearing-impaired listeners: The effect of increased audibility through reduction of amplitude variability.
    Desloge JG; Reed CM; Braida LD; Perez ZD; D'Aquila LA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4452. PubMed ID: 28679277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Evaluation of the NAL Dynamic Conversations Test in older listeners with hearing loss.
    Best V; Keidser G; Freeston K; Buchholz JM
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):221-229. PubMed ID: 28826285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Modifications of the MUlti stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA) for use in audiology.
    Völker C; Bisitz T; Huber R; Kollmeier B; Ernst SMA
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S92-S104. PubMed ID: 27598985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods.
    Bridges JF; Lataille AT; Buttorff C; White S; Niparko JK
    Trends Amplif; 2012 Mar; 16(1):40-8. PubMed ID: 22514094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users.
    Ng EH; Rudner M; Lunner T; Pedersen MS; Rönnberg J
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jul; 52(7):433-41. PubMed ID: 23550584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Stability-controlled hybrid adaptive feedback cancellation scheme for hearing aids.
    Nordholm S; Schepker H; Tran LTT; Doclo S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jan; 143(1):150. PubMed ID: 29390746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Validation of the Chinese version "satisfaction with amplification in daily life (SADL)" survey for hearing-aid users.
    Fang TY; Chang HJ; Wan TK; Wang PC; Chen YH
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jul; 52(7):478-84. PubMed ID: 23514602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Speech quality evaluation of a sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm with normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2015 Sep; 327():175-85. PubMed ID: 26232529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The Audibility of Low Vision Devices with Speech Output Used by Older Adults with Dual Sensory Impairment.
    St-Amour L; Jarry J; Wittich W
    Optom Vis Sci; 2019 May; 96(5):345-353. PubMed ID: 31046017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Acoustical and Perceptual Comparison of Noise Reduction and Compression in Hearing Aids.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2015 Aug; 58(4):1363-76. PubMed ID: 26090648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.