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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34737817)

  • 21. Fitting Frequency-Lowering Signal Processing Applying the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: Updates and Protocols.
    Scollie S; Glista D; Seto J; Dunn A; Schuett B; Hawkins M; Pourmand N; Parsa V
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Mar; 27(3):219-236. PubMed ID: 26967363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Audiological benefit and subjective satisfaction of children with the ADHEAR audio processor and adhesive adapter.
    Favoreel A; Heuninck E; Mansbach AL
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2020 Feb; 129():109729. PubMed ID: 31689608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Verification of EasyGain Settings in the Roger Remote Microphone System.
    Qi S; Thibodeau L
    Am J Audiol; 2023 Sep; 32(3):514-525. PubMed ID: 37473439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Hearing performance benefits of a programmable power baha® sound processor with a directional microphone for patients with a mixed hearing loss.
    Flynn MC; Hedin A; Halvarsson G; Good T; Sadeghi A
    Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol; 2012 Apr; 5 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S76-81. PubMed ID: 22701154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone.
    Boothroyd A
    Ear Hear; 2004 Feb; 25(1):22-33. PubMed ID: 14770015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Feasibility of Personal Sound Amplification Products in Patients With Moderate Hearing Loss: A Pilot Study.
    Kim GY; Kim JS; Jo M; Seol HY; Cho YS; Moon IJ
    Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol; 2022 Feb; 15(1):60-68. PubMed ID: 33541032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Compression-dependent differences in hearing aid gain between speech and nonspeech input signals.
    Henning RW; Bentler R
    Ear Hear; 2005 Aug; 26(4):409-22. PubMed ID: 16079635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Effect of microphone location in ITE versus BTE hearing aids.
    Gartrell EL; Church GT
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1990 Jul; 1(3):151-3. PubMed ID: 2132598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparing audiological outcomes between the Bonebridge and bone conduction hearing aid on a hard test band: Our experience in children with atresia and microtia.
    Kulasegarah J; Burgess H; Neeff M; Brown CRS
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2018 Apr; 107():176-182. PubMed ID: 29501302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Hearing Benefit and Rated Satisfaction in Children with Unilateral Conductive Hearing Loss Using a Transcutaneous Magnetic-Coupled Bone-Conduction Hearing Aid.
    Polonenko MJ; Carinci L; Gordon KA; Papsin BC; Cushing SL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2016; 27(10):790-804. PubMed ID: 27885975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Fitting and verification of frequency modulation systems on children with normal hearing.
    Schafer EC; Bryant D; Sanders K; Baldus N; Algier K; Lewis A; Traber J; Layden P; Amin A
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Jun; 25(6):529-40. PubMed ID: 25313543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. High-frequency audibility: the effects of audiometric configuration, stimulus type, and device.
    Kimlinger C; McCreery R; Lewis D
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Feb; 26(2):128-37. PubMed ID: 25690773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Test-retest reliability of probe-microphone verification in children fitted with open and closed hearing aid tips.
    Kim H; Ricketts TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(7):635-42. PubMed ID: 24047950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparisons of speech recognition in noise by mildly-to-moderately hearing-impaired children using hearing aids and FM systems.
    Hawkins DB
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1984 Nov; 49(4):409-18. PubMed ID: 6503247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Assessment of FM systems with an ear canal probe tube microphone system.
    Hawkins DB
    Ear Hear; 1987 Oct; 8(5):301-3. PubMed ID: 3678646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.