164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37942535)
1. 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]
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. 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. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Remote or in-clinic? The effect of service delivery mode on hearing aid output: study protocol for a double-blinded, randomised trial in adults with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss.
Lett C; Welch D; Dobson R
Trials; 2024 Apr; 25(1):256. PubMed ID: 38610038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Amplification Self-Adjustment: Controls and Repeatability.
Boothroyd A; Retana J; Mackersie CL
Ear Hear; 2022; 43(3):808-821. PubMed ID: 34653029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Self-Adjustment of Hearing Aid Amplification for Lower Speech Levels: Independent Ratings, Paired Comparisons, and Speech Recognition.
Perry TT; Nelson PB
Am J Audiol; 2022 Jun; 31(2):305-321. PubMed ID: 35316099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. The Effects of Extended Input Dynamic Range on Laboratory and Field-Trial Evaluations in Adult Hearing Aid Users.
Plyler PN; Easterday M; Behrens T
J Am Acad Audiol; 2019; 30(7):634-648. PubMed ID: 30403956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. The Effects of Nonlinear Frequency Compression and Digital Noise Reduction on Word Recognition and Satisfaction Ratings in Noise in Adult Hearing Aid Users.
Plyler PN; Tardy B; Hedrick M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Feb; 30(2):103-114. PubMed ID: 30461384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effectiveness of an Over-the-Counter Self-fitting Hearing Aid Compared With an Audiologist-Fitted Hearing Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
De Sousa KC; Manchaiah V; Moore DR; Graham MA; Swanepoel W
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2023 Jun; 149(6):522-530. PubMed ID: 37052929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise.
Kuk F; Keenan D; Korhonen P; Lau CC
J Am Acad Audiol; 2009 Sep; 20(8):465-79. PubMed ID: 19764167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users?
Smeds K
Ear Hear; 2004 Apr; 25(2):159-72. PubMed ID: 15064661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
