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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 405914)

  • 61. Speech perception with hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    Owens E; Telleen CC
    Arch Otolaryngol; 1981 Mar; 107(3):160-3. PubMed ID: 6894086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Sound evaluation of partially implantable piezoelectric middle ear implant: comparative study of frequency responses.
    Kodera K; Suzuki J; Nagai K; Yabe T
    Ear Nose Throat J; 1994 Feb; 73(2):108-11. PubMed ID: 8168442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor.
    Mertens G; Hofkens A; Punte AK; De Bodt M; Van de Heyning P
    Otol Neurotol; 2015 Jan; 36(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 25406874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Speech Auditory Brainstem Response through hearing aid stimulation.
    Bellier L; Veuillet E; Vesson JF; Bouchet P; Caclin A; Thai-Van H
    Hear Res; 2015 Jul; 325():49-54. PubMed ID: 25828076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. A comparison of hearing aids with amplitude compression.
    Nábĕlek IV; Robinette LN
    Audiology; 1977; 16(1):73-85. PubMed ID: 836256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. The Just-Meaningful Difference in Speech-to-Noise Ratio.
    McShefferty D; Whitmer WM; Akeroyd MA
    Trends Hear; 2016 Feb; 20():. PubMed ID: 26834121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. The relative importance of recovery time in compression hearing aids.
    Schweitzer HC; Causey GD
    Audiology; 1977; 16(1):61-72. PubMed ID: 836255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
    Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Audiometric earphone discomfort level and hearing aid saturation sound pressure level for a 90 decibel input signal (SSPL90) as measured in the human ear canal.
    Leijon A; Harford E; Lidén G; Ringdahl A; Dahlberg AK
    Ear Hear; 1983; 4(4):185-9. PubMed ID: 6618037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Clinical trials with a 22-channel cochlear prosthesis.
    Cohen NL; Waltzman SB; Shapiro WH
    Laryngoscope; 1985 Dec; 95(12):1448-54. PubMed ID: 3906323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adult Listeners: Speech-On-Speech Masking and Multitalker Localization.
    Rana B; Buchholz JM; Morgan C; Sharma M; Weller T; Konganda SA; Shirai K; Kawano A
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517722106. PubMed ID: 28752811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Some aspects of methodology in speech audiometry.
    Hagerman B
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1984; 21():1-25. PubMed ID: 6589731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids.
    Stone MA; Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Glasberg BR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Dec; 106(6):3603-19. PubMed ID: 10615700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Middle ear implantable hearing devices.
    Spindel JH
    Am J Audiol; 2002 Dec; 11(2):104-13. PubMed ID: 12691220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Further questions about the acceptable noise level test.
    Hamill TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2007 Feb; 18(2):184-5; author reply 185-7. PubMed ID: 17402302
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Intertester reliability of the acceptable noise level.
    Olsen SØ; Nielsen LH; Lantz J; Brännström KJ
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Mar; 24(3):241-3. PubMed ID: 23506668
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Response to Olsen et al.
    Gordon-Hickey S; Van Haneghan J; Adams E; Moore R
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Mar; 24(3):243-5. PubMed ID: 23506669
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. An analysis of the Utley lipreading test.
    DICARLO LM; KATAJA R
    J Speech Disord; 1951 Sep; 16(3:1):226-40. PubMed ID: 14898563
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. International technical standards: whose problem is it?
    Martin MC
    Int J Audiol; 2002 Sep; 41(6):371-3; author reply 374. PubMed ID: 12353610
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Hearing lips and seeing voices.
    Boston D
    Br J Audiol; 1977 Aug; 11(3):86-7. PubMed ID: 922232
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.