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 *

411 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29782445)

  • 41. Effects of hearing aid settings for electric-acoustic stimulation.
    Dillon MT; Buss E; Pillsbury HC; Adunka OF; Buchman CA; Adunka MC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):133-40. PubMed ID: 24828214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures.
    Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 1996 Apr; 17(2):124-32. PubMed ID: 8698159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Bimodal benefit depends on the performance difference between a cochlear implant and a hearing aid.
    Yoon YS; Shin YR; Gho JS; Fu QJ
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 May; 16(3):159-67. PubMed ID: 25329752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Comparison of the NAL(R) and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids.
    Peters RW; Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
    Br J Audiol; 2000 Feb; 34(1):21-36. PubMed ID: 10759075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Investigation of hearing aid fitting according to the national acoustic laboratories' prescription for non-linear hearing aids and the desired sensation level methods in Japanese speakers: a crossover-controlled trial.
    Furuki S; Sano H; Kurioka T; Nitta Y; Umehara S; Hara Y; Yamashita T
    Auris Nasus Larynx; 2023 Oct; 50(5):708-713. PubMed ID: 36792399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Contralateral hearing aid use in cochlear implanted patients: multicenter study of bimodal benefit.
    Morera C; Cavalle L; Manrique M; Huarte A; Angel R; Osorio A; Garcia-Ibañez L; Estrada E; Morera-Ballester C
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2012 Oct; 132(10):1084-94. PubMed ID: 22667256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Horizontal sound localization in cochlear implant users with a contralateral hearing aid.
    Veugen LCE; Hendrikse MME; van Wanrooij MM; Agterberg MJH; Chalupper J; Mens LHM; Snik AFM; John van Opstal A
    Hear Res; 2016 Jun; 336():72-82. PubMed ID: 27178443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Bimodal benefit for cochlear implant listeners with different grades of hearing loss in the opposite ear.
    Hoppe U; Hocke T; Digeser F
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2018 Aug; 138(8):713-721. PubMed ID: 29553839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. CHENFIT-AMP, a nonlinear fitting and amplification strategy for cochlear hearing loss.
    Chen Z; Hu G
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2013 Nov; 60(11):3226-37. PubMed ID: 23846434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Speech perception benefit for children with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid in opposite ears and children with bilateral cochlear implants.
    Mok M; Galvin KL; Dowell RC; McKay CM
    Audiol Neurootol; 2010; 15(1):44-56. PubMed ID: 19468210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Listener Factors Explain Little Variability in Self-Adjusted Hearing Aid Gain.
    Perry TT; Nelson PB; Van Tasell DJ
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519837124. PubMed ID: 30880645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.
    Debruyne JA; Francart T; Janssen AM; Douma K; Brokx JP
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):174-185. PubMed ID: 27758152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Binaural hearing advantages for children with bimodal fitting.
    Lotfi Y; Hasanalifard M; Moossavi A; Bakhshi E; Ajaloueyan M
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2019 Jun; 121():58-63. PubMed ID: 30875620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Contribution of hearing aids to music perception by cochlear implant users.
    Peterson N; Bergeson TR
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 3():S71-8. PubMed ID: 26561890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. [Speech perception in modulated noise assessed in bimodal CI users-German version].
    Weißgerber T; Stöver T; Baumann U
    HNO; 2023 Aug; 71(8):487-493. PubMed ID: 37395783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Speech perception in modulated noise assessed in bimodal CI users.
    Weißgerber T; Stöver T; Baumann U
    HNO; 2024 Jan; 72(Suppl 1):10-16. PubMed ID: 37552279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Comparison of real-ear insertion gains in Japanese-speaking individuals wearing hearing aids with DSLv5 and NAL-NL2.
    Furuki S; Sano H; Kurioka T; Ogiwara A; Nakagawa T; Inoue R; Umehara S; Hara Y; Suzuki K; Yamashita T
    Auris Nasus Larynx; 2021 Feb; 48(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 32747167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Modern prescription theory and application: realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing AIDS.
    Johnson EE
    Trends Amplif; 2013; 17(3):143-70. PubMed ID: 24253361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Functional status of hearing aids in bilateral-bimodal users.
    Yehudai N; Shpak T; Most T; Luntz M
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Jun; 34(4):675-81. PubMed ID: 23640089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.