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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36706459)

  • 1. Verification of Estimated Output Signal-to-Noise Ratios From a Phase Inversion Technique Using a Simulated Hearing Aid.
    Yun D; Shen Y; Lentz JJ
    Am J Audiol; 2023 Mar; 32(1):197-209. PubMed ID: 36706459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Noise Reduction Algorithm May Not Compensate for the Degradation in Output Signal-to-Noise Ratio Caused by Wide Dynamic Range Compression.
    Yun D; Lentz J; Shen Y
    Am J Audiol; 2024 Jun; ():1-17. PubMed ID: 38875482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of Directionality, Compression, and Working Memory on Speech Recognition.
    Rallapalli V; Ellis G; Souza P
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(3):492-505. PubMed ID: 33136708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of WDRC release time and number of channels on output SNR and speech recognition.
    Alexander JM; Masterson K
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(2):e35-49. PubMed ID: 25470368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: perception and prediction.
    Wu YH; Stangl E
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):333-41. PubMed ID: 23334355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing AIDS.
    Shanks JE; Wilson RH; Larson V; Williams D
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):280-90. PubMed ID: 12195170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measuring the long-term SNRs of static and adaptive compression amplification techniques for speech in noise.
    Lai YH; Li PC; Tsai KS; Chu WC; Young ST
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Sep; 24(8):671-83. PubMed ID: 24131603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preference for Combinations of Hearing Aid Signal Processing.
    Rallapalli V; Schauer J; Souza P
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2022 Aug; 65(8):3100-3116. PubMed ID: 35881878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Effects of Signal to Noise Ratio, T60 , Wide-Dynamic Range Compression Speed, and Digital Noise Reduction in a Virtual Restaurant Setting.
    Ellis GM; Crukley J; Souza PE
    Ear Hear; 2024 May-Jun 01; 45(3):760-774. PubMed ID: 38254265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of reverberation, background talker number, and compression release time on signal-to-noise ratio.
    Reinhart P; Zahorik P; Souza PE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Jul; 142(1):EL130. PubMed ID: 28764441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of compression release time of a hearing aid on sentence recognition and the quality judgment of speech.
    Shetty HN; Raju S
    Noise Health; 2019; 21(103):232-241. PubMed ID: 32978360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of Adaptive Compression and Fast-Acting WDRC Strategies on Sentence Recognition in Noise in Mandarin-Speaking Pediatric Hearing Aid Users.
    Liu H; Liu Y; Li Y; Jin X; Li J; Zhou Y; Ge W; Ni X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Apr; 29(4):273-278. PubMed ID: 29664721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Perceptual Evaluation of Signal-to-Noise-Ratio-Aware Dynamic Range Compression in Hearing Aids.
    Kowalewski B; Dau T; May T
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520930531. PubMed ID: 32573373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Preferred listening levels for linear and slow-acting compression hearing aids.
    Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Hellman S; Levitt H
    Ear Hear; 1995 Aug; 16(4):407-16. PubMed ID: 8549896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Determination of preferred parameters for multichannel compression using individually fitted simulated hearing AIDS and paired comparisons.
    Moore BC; Füllgrabe C; Stone MA
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):556-68. PubMed ID: 21285878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Listening effort and perceived clarity for normal-hearing children with the use of digital noise reduction.
    Gustafson S; McCreery R; Hoover B; Kopun JG; Stelmachowicz P
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(2):183-94. PubMed ID: 24473240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. The effect of hearing aid technologies on listening in an automobile.
    Wu YH; Stangl E; Bentler RA; Stanziola RW
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Jun; 24(6):474-85. PubMed ID: 23886425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Type of Noise Influences Quality Ratings for Noisy Speech in Hearing Aid Users.
    Lundberg EMH; Chon SH; Kates JM; Anderson MC; Arehart KH
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2020 Dec; 63(12):4300-4313. PubMed ID: 33253602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.