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 *

70 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3430373)

  • 1. Multichannel compression processing for profound deafness.
    Villchur E
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):135-48. PubMed ID: 3430373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Multiband compression limiting for hearing-impaired listeners.
    Bustamante DK; Braida LD
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):149-60. PubMed ID: 3430374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Speech discrimination with an 8-channel compression hearing aid and conventional aids in background of speech-band noise.
    Yund EW; Simon HJ; Efron R
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):161-80. PubMed ID: 3430375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Improvement in speech intelligibility in noise employing an adaptive filter with normal and hearing-impaired subjects.
    Brey RH; Robinette MS; Chabries DM; Christiansen RW
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):75-86. PubMed ID: 3430392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of signal processing on intelligibility of speech in noise for persons with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Yanick P
    J Am Audiol Soc; 1976; 1(5):229-38. PubMed ID: 956011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Influence of high pass filtering on the intelligibility of amplitude-compressed speech.
    Vargo SW
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(3):163-7. PubMed ID: 528294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Audio-visual perception of compressed speech by profoundly hearing-impaired subjects.
    Drullman R; Smoorenburg GF
    Audiology; 1997; 36(3):165-77. PubMed ID: 9193734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimates of basilar-membrane nonlinearity effects on masking of tones and speech.
    Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):2-17. PubMed ID: 17204895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S).
    Cameron S; Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):196-211. PubMed ID: 17496671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test.
    Cameron S; Dillon H; Newall P
    Ear Hear; 2006 Feb; 27(1):30-42. PubMed ID: 16446563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Design and evaluation of a two-channel compression hearing aid.
    Moore BC
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):181-92. PubMed ID: 3430376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners' performance on the connected speech test.
    Sherbecoe RL; Studebaker GA
    Ear Hear; 2003 Feb; 24(1):71-88. PubMed ID: 12598814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Microprocessor-based hearing aid for the deaf.
    Shimizu Y
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1989; 26(2):25-36. PubMed ID: 2724150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Multichannel syllabic compression for severely impaired listeners.
    De Gennaro S; Braida LD; Durlach NI
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1986 Jan; 23(1):17-24. PubMed ID: 3958996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Auditory filtering and the discrimination of spectral shapes by normal and hearing-impaired subjects.
    Turner CW; Holte LA; Relkin E
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):229-38. PubMed ID: 3430382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Central effects of residual hearing: implications for choice of ear for cochlear implantation.
    Francis HW; Yeagle JD; Brightwell T; Venick H
    Laryngoscope; 2004 Oct; 114(10):1747-52. PubMed ID: 15454765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids.
    Davidson LS
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):493-507. PubMed ID: 16957500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
    Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.