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 *

452 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30300158)

  • 1. Achieved Gain and Subjective Outcomes for a Wide-Bandwidth Contact Hearing Aid Fitted Using CAM2.
    Arbogast TL; Moore BCJ; Puria S; Dundas D; Brimacombe J; Edwards B; Carr Levy S
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(3):741-756. PubMed ID: 30300158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An initial-fit comparison of two generic hearing aid prescriptive methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to individuals having mild to moderately severe high-frequency hearing loss.
    Johnson EE
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Feb; 24(2):138-50. PubMed ID: 23357807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. I. Experienced users, fitted bilaterally.
    Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Marriage J
    Br J Audiol; 2001 Dec; 35(6):339-53. PubMed ID: 11848176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF method for fitting hearing aids with multichannel amplitude compression.
    Moore BC; Füllgrabe C
    Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):657-66. PubMed ID: 20526199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Investigation of Extended Bandwidth Hearing Aid Amplification on Speech Intelligibility and Sound Quality in Adults with Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss.
    Seeto A; Searchfield GD
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Mar; 29(3):243-254. PubMed ID: 29488874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility.
    Johnson EE; Dillon H
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011; 22(7):441-59. PubMed ID: 21993050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sentence recognition in noise and perceived benefit of noise reduction on the receiver and transmitter sides of a BICROS hearing aid.
    Oeding K; Valente M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(10):980-91. PubMed ID: 24384083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Acclimatization to hearing aids.
    Dawes P; Munro KJ; Kalluri S; Edwards B
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):203-12. PubMed ID: 24351612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Using trainable hearing aids to examine real-world preferred gain.
    Mueller HG; Hornsby BW; Weber JE
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008; 19(10):758-73. PubMed ID: 19358456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Light-Driven Contact Hearing Aid for Broad-Spectrum Amplification: Safety and Effectiveness Pivotal Study.
    Gantz BJ; Perkins R; Murray M; Levy SC; Puria S
    Otol Neurotol; 2017 Mar; 38(3):352-359. PubMed ID: 28005723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users.
    Marriage J; Moore BC; Alcántara JI
    Int J Audiol; 2004 Apr; 43(4):198-210. PubMed ID: 15250124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Middle ear electromagnetic semi-implantable hearing device: results of the phase II SOUNDTEC direct system clinical trial.
    Hough JV; Matthews P; Wood MW; Dyer RK
    Otol Neurotol; 2002 Nov; 23(6):895-903. PubMed ID: 12438853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of Modified Hearing Aid Fittings on Loudness and Tone Quality for Different Acoustic Scenes.
    Moore BC; Baer T; Ives DT; Marriage J; Salorio-Corbetto M
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(4):483-91. PubMed ID: 26928003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Transitioning hearing aid users with severe and profound loss to a new gain/frequency response: benefit, perception, and acceptance.
    Convery E; Keidser G
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Mar; 22(3):168-80. PubMed ID: 21545769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids.
    Stelmachowicz PG; Dalzell S; Peterson D; Kopun J; Lewis DL; Hoover BE
    Ear Hear; 1998 Apr; 19(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 9562535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 hearing aid fitting methods.
    Moore BC; Sęk A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 22878351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Spatial benefit of bilateral hearing AIDS.
    Ahlstrom JB; Horwitz AR; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2009 Apr; 30(2):203-18. PubMed ID: 19194292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of different vibrant soundbridge audioprocessors with conventional hearing AIDS.
    Todt I; Seidl RO; Gross M; Ernst A
    Otol Neurotol; 2002 Sep; 23(5):669-73. PubMed ID: 12218618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Differences in Word and Phoneme Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Recognition in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes between Manufacturer First-Fit and Hearing Aids Programmed to NAL-NL2 Using Real-Ear Measures.
    Valente M; Oeding K; Brockmeyer A; Smith S; Kallogjeri D
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Sep; 29(8):706-721. PubMed ID: 30222541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.