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 *

220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33073727)

  • 1. Investigating the Effects of Four Auditory Profiles on Speech Recognition, Overall Quality, and Noise Annoyance With Simulated Hearing-Aid Processing Strategies.
    Wu M; Sanchez-Lopez R; El-Haj-Ali M; Nielsen SG; Fereczkowski M; Dau T; Santurette S; Neher T
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520960861. PubMed ID: 33073727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Influence of Three Auditory Profiles on Aided Speech Perception in Different Noise Scenarios.
    Wu M; Cañete OM; Schmidt JH; Fereczkowski M; Neher T
    Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211023709. PubMed ID: 34184946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of directional sound processing and listener's motivation on EEG responses to continuous noisy speech: Do normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners differ?
    Mirkovic B; Debener S; Schmidt J; Jaeger M; Neher T
    Hear Res; 2019 Jun; 377():260-270. PubMed ID: 31003037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing.
    Bernstein JG; Summers V; Grassi E; Grant KW
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Apr; 24(4):307-28. PubMed ID: 23636211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Effects of FM and Hearing Aid Microphone Settings, FM Gain, and Ambient Noise Levels on SNR at the Tympanic Membrane.
    Norrix LW; Camarota K; Harris FP; Dean J
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Feb; 27(2):117-25. PubMed ID: 26905531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Revisiting Auditory Profiling: Can Cognitive Factors Improve the Prediction of Aided Speech-in-Noise Outcome?
    Wu M; Christiansen S; Fereczkowski M; Neher T
    Trends Hear; 2022; 26():23312165221113889. PubMed ID: 35942807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Left Lateralization of the Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potential Reflects Aided Processing and Speech-in-Noise Performance of Older Listeners With a Hearing Loss.
    Slugocki C; Kuk F; Korhonen P
    Ear Hear; 2023 Mar-Apr 01; 44(2):399-410. PubMed ID: 36331191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Strategies of hearing aids fitting for improving speech recognition in noisy environments].
    Boboshko MY; Berdnikova IP; Korotkov YV; Maltseva NV
    Vestn Otorinolaringol; 2021; 86(2):28-32. PubMed ID: 33929148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Auditory Distraction and Acclimatization to Hearing Aids.
    Dawes P; Munro KJ
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(2):174-183. PubMed ID: 27564230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dynamic relation between working memory capacity and speech recognition in noise during the first 6 months of hearing aid use.
    Ng EH; Classon E; Larsby B; Arlinger S; Lunner T; Rudner M; Rönnberg J
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of noise source configuration on directional benefit using symmetric and asymmetric directional hearing aid fittings.
    Hornsby BW; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 17496669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of hearing aid dynamic range compression on speech intelligibility in a realistic virtual sound environment.
    Mansour N; Marschall M; Westermann A; May T; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Jan; 151(1):232. PubMed ID: 35105015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Individual differences in speech recognition ability: implications for hearing aid selection.
    Crandell CC
    Ear Hear; 1991 Dec; 12(6 Suppl):100S-108S. PubMed ID: 1794636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality.
    Boymans M; Dreschler WA
    Audiology; 2000; 39(5):260-8. PubMed ID: 11093610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Personal amplification for school-age children with auditory processing disorders.
    Kuk F; Jackson A; Keenan D; Lau CC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008 Jun; 19(6):465-80. PubMed ID: 19253780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs) in adults in response to filtered speech stimuli.
    Carter L; Dillon H; Seymour J; Seeto M; Van Dun B
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Oct; 24(9):807-22. PubMed ID: 24224988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise: hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners.
    Summers V; Makashay MJ; Theodoroff SM; Leek MR
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Apr; 24(4):274-92. PubMed ID: 23636209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.