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.
173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35061063)
1. [Effectiveness of hearing aid provision for severe hearing loss]. Engler M; Digeser F; Hoppe U HNO; 2022 Jul; 70(7):520-532. PubMed ID: 35061063 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Evaluation of Hearing Aid Manufacturers' Software-Derived Fittings to DSL v5.0 Pediatric Targets. Folkeard P; Bagatto M; Scollie S J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 May; 31(5):354-362. PubMed ID: 31639078 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Speech recognition with hearing aids for 10 standard audiograms]. Dörfler C; Hocke T; Hast A; Hoppe U HNO; 2020 Jan; 68(1):40-47. PubMed ID: 31728573 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Speech recognition with hearing aids for 10 standard audiograms : English version. Dörfler C; Hocke T; Hast A; Hoppe U HNO; 2020 Aug; 68(Suppl 2):93-99. PubMed ID: 32211930 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Functional outcomes for speech-in-noise intelligibility of NAL-NL2 and DSL v.5 prescriptive fitting rules in hearing aid users. Portelli D; Loteta S; Ciodaro F; Salvago P; Galletti C; Freni L; Alberti G Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2024 Jun; 281(6):3227-3235. PubMed ID: 38546852 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative analysis of the NAL-NL2 and DSL v5.0a prescription procedures in the adaptation of hearing aids in the elderly. Bertozzo MC; Blasca WQ Codas; 2019 Aug; 31(4):e20180171. PubMed ID: 31433039 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Task-Dependent Effects of Signal Audibility for Processing Speech: Comparing Performance With NAL-NL2 and DSL v5 Hearing Aid Prescriptions at Threshold and at Suprathreshold Levels in 9- to 17-Year-Olds With Hearing Loss. Pittman AL; Stewart EC Trends Hear; 2023; 27():23312165231177509. PubMed ID: 37254534 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing-aid fitting: predicted speech intelligibility and loudness. Ching TY; Johnson EE; Hou S; Dillon H; Zhang V; Burns L; van Buynder P; Wong A; Flynn C Int J Audiol; 2013 Dec; 52 Suppl 2(0 2):S29-38. PubMed ID: 24350692 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Modern prescription theory and application: realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing AIDS. Johnson EE Trends Amplif; 2013; 17(3):143-70. PubMed ID: 24253361 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Role of cochlear reserve in adults with cochlear implants following post-lingual hearing loss. Thangavelu K; Nitzge M; Weiß RM; Mueller-Mazzotta J; Stuck BA; Reimann K Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2023 Mar; 280(3):1063-1071. PubMed ID: 35947149 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of bimodal benefit for the use of DSL v5.0 and NAL-NL2 in cochlear implant listeners. Digeser FM; Engler M; Hoppe U Int J Audiol; 2020 May; 59(5):383-391. PubMed ID: 31809219 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Fit-to-Targets and Aided Speech Intelligibility Index Values for Hearing Aids Fitted to the DSL v5-Adult Prescription. Dao A; Folkeard P; Baker S; Pumford J; Scollie S J Am Acad Audiol; 2021 Feb; 32(2):90-98. PubMed ID: 33296929 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Investigation of hearing aid fitting according to the national acoustic laboratories' prescription for non-linear hearing aids and the desired sensation level methods in Japanese speakers: a crossover-controlled trial. Furuki S; Sano H; Kurioka T; Nitta Y; Umehara S; Hara Y; Yamashita T Auris Nasus Larynx; 2023 Oct; 50(5):708-713. PubMed ID: 36792399 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]