150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34669764)
1. Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit.
Narayanan SE; Manjula P
Codas; 2021; 34(1):e20200310. PubMed ID: 34669764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Difference between the default telecoil (t-coil) and programmed microphone frequency response in behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids.
Putterman DB; Valente M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):366-78. PubMed ID: 22533979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in Hearing Aids Fit to Children with Severe or Profound Hearing Loss: Goodness of Fit-to-Targets, Impacts on Predicted Loudness and Speech Intelligibility.
Ching TY; Quar TK; Johnson EE; Newall P; Sharma M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):260-74. PubMed ID: 25751694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device.
Keidser G; Grant F
Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):501-15. PubMed ID: 11770672
[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. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit.
Abrams HB; Chisolm TH; McManus M; McArdle R
J Am Acad Audiol; 2012; 23(10):768-78. PubMed ID: 23169194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Accuracy of an Automated Hearing Aid Fitting Using Real Ear Measures Embedded in a Manufacturer Fitting Software.
Brockmeyer A; Voss A; Wick CC; Durakovic N; Valente M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2021 Mar; 32(3):157-163. PubMed ID: 34062602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The Effects of Manufacturer's Prefit and Real-Ear Fitting on the Predicted Speech Perception of Children with Severe to Profound Hearing Loss.
Quar TK; Umat C; Chew YY
J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 May; 30(5):346-356. PubMed ID: 30461383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The accuracy of matching target insertion gains with open-fit hearing aids.
Aazh H; Moore BC; Prasher D
Am J Audiol; 2012 Dec; 21(2):175-80. PubMed ID: 22846638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of real-world preferences and performance of hearing aids fitted according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures in children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss.
Quar TK; Ching TY; Newall P; Sharma M
Int J Audiol; 2013 May; 52(5):322-32. PubMed ID: 23570290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Evaluation of Extended-Wear Hearing Technology for Children with Hearing Loss.
Wolfe J; Schafer E; Martella N; Morais M; Mann M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015; 26(7):615-31. PubMed ID: 26218051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Difference in Speech Recognition between a Default and Programmed Telecoil Program.
Ledda KT; Valente M; Oeding K; Kallogjeri D
J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Jun; 30(6):502-515. PubMed ID: 30461405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Probe microphone measurements: 20 years of progress.
Mueller HG
Trends Amplif; 2001 Jun; 5(2):35-68. PubMed ID: 25425897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Listening Preferences of New Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Registered, Double-Blind, Randomized, Mixed-Methods Clinical Trial of Initial Versus Real-Ear Fit.
Almufarrij I; Dillon H; Adams B; Greval A; Munro KJ
Trends Hear; 2023; 27():23312165231189596. PubMed ID: 37942535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Implications of high-frequency cochlear dead regions for fitting hearing aids to adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss.
Cox RM; Johnson JA; Alexander GC
Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):573-87. PubMed ID: 22555183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
