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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29764254)

  • 1. Evaluation of a multi-channel algorithm for reducing transient sounds.
    Keshavarzi M; Baer T; Moore BCJ
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Aug; 57(8):624-631. PubMed ID: 29764254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Nonlinear frequency compression: effects on sound quality ratings of speech and music.
    Parsa V; Scollie S; Glista D; Seelisch A
    Trends Amplif; 2013 Mar; 17(1):54-68. PubMed ID: 23539261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Preliminary evaluation of a novel non-linear frequency compression scheme for use in children.
    Wolfe J; Duke M; Schafer EC; Rehmann J; Jha S; Allegro Baumann S; John A; Jones C
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Dec; 56(12):976-988. PubMed ID: 28851244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Integrating cognitive and peripheral factors in predicting hearing-aid processing effectiveness.
    Kates JM; Arehart KH; Souza PE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Dec; 134(6):4458. PubMed ID: 25669257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of spectral change enhancement for the hearing impaired using parameter values selected with a genetic algorithm.
    Chen J; Baer T; Moore BC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):2910-20. PubMed ID: 23654396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Does the acceptable noise level (ANL) predict hearing-aid use?
    Olsen SØ; Brännström KJ
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):2-20. PubMed ID: 24219089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An Australian version of the acceptable noise level test and its predictive value for successful hearing aid use in an older population.
    Walravens E; Keidser G; Hartley D; Hickson L
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Feb; 53 Suppl 1():S52-9. PubMed ID: 24447234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Hearing aid fitting and fine-tuning based on estimated individual traits.
    Völker C; Ernst SMA; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S139-S145. PubMed ID: 27873543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The ANL: does it, or does it not?
    Roeser RJ
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):1. PubMed ID: 24219090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response.
    Ohlenforst B; Wendt D; Kramer SE; Naylor G; Zekveld AA; Lunner T
    Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 365():90-99. PubMed ID: 29779607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improving speech-in-noise recognition for children with hearing loss: potential effects of language abilities, binaural summation, and head shadow.
    Nittrouer S; Caldwell-Tarr A; Tarr E; Lowenstein JH; Rice C; Moberly AC
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Aug; 52(8):513-25. PubMed ID: 23834373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. On a reference-free speech quality estimator for hearing aids.
    Suelzle D; Parsa V; Falk TH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):EL412-8. PubMed ID: 23656102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Auditory inspired machine learning techniques can improve speech intelligibility and quality for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Monaghan JJ; Goehring T; Yang X; Bolner F; Wang S; Wright MC; Bleeck S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1985. PubMed ID: 28372043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.