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 *

620 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29373937)

  • 1. Binaural model-based dynamic-range compression.
    Ernst SMA; Kortlang S; Grimm G; Bisitz T; Kollmeier B; Ewert SD
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S31-S42. PubMed ID: 29373937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Acoustic and perceptual effects of magnifying interaural difference cues in a simulated "binaural" hearing aid.
    de Taillez T; Grimm G; Kollmeier B; Neher T
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S81-S91. PubMed ID: 28395561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of combined dynamic compression and single channel noise reduction for hearing aid applications.
    Kortlang S; Chen Z; Gerkmann T; Kollmeier B; Hohmann V; Ewert SD
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S43-S54. PubMed ID: 28355947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of hearing-aid dynamic range compression on spatial perception in a reverberant environment.
    Hassager HG; Wiinberg A; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2556. PubMed ID: 28464692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Examination of a hybrid beamformer that preserves auditory spatial cues.
    Best V; Roverud E; Mason CR; Kidd G
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Oct; 142(4):EL369. PubMed ID: 29092558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Speech reception with different bilateral directional processing schemes: Influence of binaural hearing, audiometric asymmetry, and acoustic scenario.
    Neher T; Wagener KC; Latzel M
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():36-48. PubMed ID: 28783570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessment of hearing aid algorithms using a master hearing aid: the influence of hearing aid experience on the relationship between speech recognition and cognitive capacity.
    Rählmann S; Meis M; Schulte M; Kießling J; Walger M; Meister H
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S105-S111. PubMed ID: 28449597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An algorithm to improve speech recognition in noise for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Healy EW; Yoho SE; Wang Y; Wang D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3029-38. PubMed ID: 24116438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Loudness summation of equal loud narrowband signals in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Ewert SD; Oetting D
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S71-S80. PubMed ID: 28971746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Binaural cue sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients with acoustic hearing preservation.
    Gifford RH; Stecker GC
    Hear Res; 2020 May; 390():107929. PubMed ID: 32182551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Benefits of Acoustic Beamforming for Solving the Cocktail Party Problem.
    Kidd G; Mason CR; Best V; Swaminathan J
    Trends Hear; 2015 Jun; 19():. PubMed ID: 26126896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The effects of selective consonant amplification on sentence recognition in noise by hearing-impaired listeners.
    Saripella R; Loizou PC; Thibodeau L; Alford JA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):3028-37. PubMed ID: 22087930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Exploration of a physiologically-inspired hearing-aid algorithm using a computer model mimicking impaired hearing.
    Jürgens T; Clark NR; Lecluyse W; Meddis R
    Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(6):346-57. PubMed ID: 26918797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An algorithm to increase intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners in the presence of a competing talker.
    Healy EW; Delfarah M; Vasko JL; Carter BL; Wang D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jun; 141(6):4230. PubMed ID: 28618817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 31.