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.
286 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4054439)
61. Validity and accuracy of electric response audiometry using the auditory steady-state response: evaluation in an empirical design. Kaf WA; Durrant JD; Sabo DL; Robert Boston J; Taubman LB; Kovacyk K Int J Audiol; 2006 Apr; 45(4):211-23. PubMed ID: 16684702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. Validation of a portable hearing assessment tool: Agilis Health Mobile Audiogram. Manganella JL; Stiles DJ; Kawai K; Barrett DL; O'Brien LB; Kenna MA Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2018 Oct; 113():94-98. PubMed ID: 30174018 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Audiometer and AudioScope hearing screening compared with threshold test in young children. Orlando MS; Frank T J Pediatr; 1987 Feb; 110(2):261-3. PubMed ID: 3806301 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
64. The Welch Allyn Audioscope and Microtymp: their accuracy and that of pneumatic otoscopy, tympanometry and pure tone audiometry as predictors of otitis media with effusion. Vaughan-Jones R; Mills RP J Laryngol Otol; 1992 Jul; 106(7):600-2. PubMed ID: 1527455 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. Audiometric screening of a population with intellectual disability. Andersson E; Arlinger S; Magnusson L; Hamrin E Int J Audiol; 2013 Jan; 52(1):50-6. PubMed ID: 23110674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. Reliability of a sound-generating otoscope. Pearlman RC; Skinner HG; Pierce JD; Goins MA Arch Otolaryngol; 1985 Dec; 111(12):792-3. PubMed ID: 4062649 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Variables affecting pure tone and speech audiometry in experimentally simulated hearing loss. Aplin DY; Kane JM Br J Audiol; 1985 Aug; 19(3):219-28. PubMed ID: 4063558 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. The automatic tone decay test as part of dynamic measurement of threshold. Lehnhardt E; Battmer RD Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 1980; 226(3):155-60. PubMed ID: 7458749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. Tablet-based Screening for Hearing Loss: Feasibility of Testing in Nonspecialty Locations. Kelly EA; Stadler ME; Nelson S; Runge CL; Friedland DR Otol Neurotol; 2018 Apr; 39(4):410-416. PubMed ID: 29494473 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. On stringent procedures and scientific methodology in the audiometric clinic. Fulton RT J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(3):119-22. PubMed ID: 160902 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
72. [Clinical and social aspects of speech audiometry. A comparative study of various speech audiometric materials]. Parving A; Barfod J; Salomon G Ugeskr Laeger; 1976 Jan; 138(4):237-40. PubMed ID: 1251486 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
73. Is there a clinical application for tablet-based automated audiometry in children? Pereira O; Pasko LE; Supinski J; Hammond M; Morlet T; Nagao K Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2018 Jul; 110():87-92. PubMed ID: 29859595 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Comparison of manual and computer-controlled audiometry using identical procedures. Jerlvall L; Dryselius H; Arlinger S Scand Audiol; 1983; 12(3):209-13. PubMed ID: 6689085 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. The manual LOT test. Lankford JE; Meissner WA J Am Audiol Soc; 1977; 2(6):219-22. PubMed ID: 893192 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. [Provoked oto-emissions. Parameters obtained in normal subjects using Kemp's equipment]. Sposetti R; Chabolle F; Meyer B; Chouard C Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac; 1990; 107(4):218-23. PubMed ID: 2221711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. [Tests for distinguishing small changes in tone frequency (author's transl)]. Gryczyński M Otolaryngol Pol; 1980; 34(5):511-5. PubMed ID: 7454347 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
78. Reliability and performance of the acoustic reflectometer. Wall LG; Shuster LI; Buhrer K; Lutes RA J Fam Pract; 1986 Nov; 23(5):443-7. PubMed ID: 3772317 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]