141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36792399)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Effects of Modified Hearing Aid Fittings on Loudness and Tone Quality for Different Acoustic Scenes.
Moore BC; Baer T; Ives DT; Marriage J; Salorio-Corbetto M
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(4):483-91. PubMed ID: 26928003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 hearing aid fitting methods.
Moore BC; Sęk A
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 22878351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Fitting recommendations and clinical benefit associated with use of the NAL-NL2 hearing-aid prescription in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients.
English R; Plant K; Maciejczyk M; Cowan R
Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S45-50. PubMed ID: 26853233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparison of the CAM2A and NAL-NL2 hearing-aid fitting methods for participants with a wide range of hearing losses.
Moore BC; Sęk A
Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(2):93-100. PubMed ID: 26470732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. NAL-NL2 Prescriptive Targets for Bone Conduction Devices With an Adaptation to Device Constraints in the Low Frequencies.
Toll M; Dingemanse G
Ear Hear; 2022 Nov-Dec 01; 43(6):1721-1729. PubMed ID: 35622973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Listener Factors Explain Little Variability in Self-Adjusted Hearing Aid Gain.
Perry TT; Nelson PB; Van Tasell DJ
Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519837124. PubMed ID: 30880645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Difference in SII provided by initial fit and NAL-NL2 and its relation to self-reported hearing aid outcomes.
Narayanan SK; Rye P; Houmøller SS; Wolff A; Hougaard DD; Gaihede M; Schmidt JH; Hammershøi D
Int J Audiol; 2023 Dec; ():1-8. PubMed ID: 38112025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
