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.
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]
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]
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]
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]