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 *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29373159)

  • 41. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
    Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Detection threshold for sound distortion resulting from noise reduction in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1375. PubMed ID: 25190410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Laboratory evaluation of an optimised internet-based speech-in-noise test for occupational high-frequency hearing loss screening: Occupational Earcheck.
    Sheikh Rashid M; Leensen MCJ; de Laat JAPM; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Nov; 56(11):844-853. PubMed ID: 28587489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: steady-state noise.
    Smits C; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2987-98. PubMed ID: 22087927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Neural envelope encoding predicts speech perception performance for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired adults.
    Goossens T; Vercammen C; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
    Hear Res; 2018 Dec; 370():189-200. PubMed ID: 30131201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Measurement and prediction of the acceptable noise level for single-microphone noise reduction algorithms.
    Fredelake S; Holube I; Schlueter A; Hansen M
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Apr; 51(4):299-308. PubMed ID: 22316007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Increasing motivation changes subjective reports of listening effort and choice of coping strategy.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jun; 53(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 24597604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. An evaluation of the performance of two binaural beamformers in complex and dynamic multitalker environments.
    Best V; Mejia J; Freeston K; van Hoesel RJ; Dillon H
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54(10):727-35. PubMed ID: 26140298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. The effect of hearing impairment on localization dominance for single-word stimuli.
    Akeroyd MA; Guy FH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):312-23. PubMed ID: 21786901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Utility of bilateral acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant.
    Plant K; Babic L
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S31-8. PubMed ID: 26987051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Listening effort and fatigue: what exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group 'white paper'.
    McGarrigle R; Munro KJ; Dawes P; Stewart AJ; Moore DR; Barry JG; Amitay S
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jul; 53(7):433-40. PubMed ID: 24673660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: the German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype.
    Zokoll MA; Wagener KC; Brand T; Buschermöhle M; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):697-707. PubMed ID: 22762202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Acceptable noise level (ANL) and real-world hearing-aid success in Taiwanese listeners.
    Ho HC; Wu YH; Hsiao SH; Zhang X
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Nov; 52(11):762-70. PubMed ID: 24099584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. Danish reading span data from 283 hearing-aid users, including a sub-group analysis of their relationship to speech-in-noise performance.
    Borch Petersen E; Lunner T; Vestergaard MD; Sundewall Thorén E
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(4):254-61. PubMed ID: 26836955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Evaluation of the preliminary auditory profile test battery in an international multi-centre study.
    van Esch TE; Kollmeier B; Vormann M; Lyzenga J; Houtgast T; Hällgren M; Larsby B; Athalye SP; Lutman ME; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2013 May; 52(5):305-21. PubMed ID: 23570289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Contralateral electrically-evoked suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in single-sided deaf patients.
    Dziemba OC; Grafmans D; Merz S; Hocke T
    Hear Res; 2017 Mar; 345():52-56. PubMed ID: 28057487
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Quality of life, effort and disturbance perceived in noise: a comparison between employees with aided hearing impairment and normal hearing.
    Hua H; Karlsson J; Widén S; Möller C; Lyxell B
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Sep; 52(9):642-9. PubMed ID: 23808681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.