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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34010249)

  • 1. Ecological Momentary Assessment: A Field Evaluation of Subjective Ratings of Speech in Noise.
    Jenstad LM; Singh G; Boretzki M; DeLongis A; Fichtl E; Ho R; Huen M; Meyer V; Pang F; Stephenson E
    Ear Hear; 2021 Nov-Dec 01; 42(6):1770-1781. PubMed ID: 34010249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A Laboratory Evaluation of Contextual Factors Affecting Ratings of Speech in Noise: Implications for Ecological Momentary Assessment.
    Jenstad LM; Gillen L; Singh G; DeLongis A; Pang F
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(4):823-832. PubMed ID: 30557223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Effect of a High Upper Input Limiting Level on Word Recognition in Noise, Sound Quality Preferences, and Subjective Ratings of Real-World Performance.
    Oeding K; Valente M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Jun; 26(6):547-62. PubMed ID: 26134722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessing Real-Life Benefit From Hearing-Aid Noise Management: SSQ12 Questionnaire Versus Ecological Momentary Assessment With Acoustic Data-Logging.
    Andersson KE; Andersen LS; Christensen JH; Neher T
    Am J Audiol; 2021 Mar; 30(1):93-104. PubMed ID: 33375840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Construct Validity of the Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research.
    Wu YH; Stangl E; Zhang X; Bentler RA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015; 26(10):872-84. PubMed ID: 26554491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The Effects of Nonlinear Frequency Compression and Digital Noise Reduction on Word Recognition and Satisfaction Ratings in Noise in Adult Hearing Aid Users.
    Plyler PN; Tardy B; Hedrick M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Feb; 30(2):103-114. PubMed ID: 30461384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Speech intelligibility benefits of hearing AIDS at various input levels.
    Kuk F; Lau CC; Korhonen P; Crose B
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):275-88. PubMed ID: 25751695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Tracking of Noise Tolerance to Predict Hearing Aid Satisfaction in Loud Noisy Environments.
    Seper E; Kuk F; Korhonen P; Slugocki C
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Apr; 30(4):302-314. PubMed ID: 30461409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Effects of Extended Input Dynamic Range on Laboratory and Field-Trial Evaluations in Adult Hearing Aid Users.
    Plyler PN; Easterday M; Behrens T
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019; 30(7):634-648. PubMed ID: 30403956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An Evaluation of Hearing Aid Beamforming Microphone Arrays in a Noisy Laboratory Setting.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Feb; 30(2):131-144. PubMed ID: 30461406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of SoundBite Bone Conduction Hearing Aids on Speech Recognition and Quality of Life in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness.
    Luo Q; Shen Y; Chen T; Zheng Z; Shi H; Feng Y; Chen Z
    Neural Plast; 2020; 2020():4106949. PubMed ID: 32963516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Test-Retest Reliability of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research.
    Wu YH; Stangl E; Chipara O; Zhang X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Sep; 31(8):599-612. PubMed ID: 33157559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Do Hearing Aids Address Real-World Hearing Difficulties for Adults With Mild Hearing Impairment? Results From a Pilot Study Using Ecological Momentary Assessment.
    Timmer BHB; Hickson L; Launer S
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518783608. PubMed ID: 29956590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening.
    Ahlstrom JB; Horwitz AR; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(1):72-85. PubMed ID: 24121648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise.
    Kuk F; Keenan D; Korhonen P; Lau CC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2009 Sep; 20(8):465-79. PubMed ID: 19764167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of a transient noise reduction strategy for hearing AIDS.
    Liu H; Zhang H; Bentler RA; Han D; Zhang L
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 Sep; 23(8):606-15. PubMed ID: 22967735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.