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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4063555)

  • 41. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss.
    Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Acoustical and Perceptual Comparison of Noise Reduction and Compression in Hearing Aids.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2015 Aug; 58(4):1363-76. PubMed ID: 26090648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Aided growth of masking for speech and nonspeech signals.
    Fortune T
    Ear Hear; 1999 Jun; 20(3):214-27. PubMed ID: 10386848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The effects of multichannel compression/expansion amplification on the intelligibility of nonsense syllables in noise.
    Walker G; Byrne D; Dillon H
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1984 Sep; 76(3):746-57. PubMed ID: 6491047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Speech intelligibility in noise with fast compression hearing aids.
    Verschuure J; Benning FJ; Van Cappellen M; Dreschler WA; Boeremans PP
    Audiology; 1998; 37(3):127-50. PubMed ID: 9626859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods.
    Humes L; Hackett T
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1990 Apr; 1(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 2132584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands.
    Hornsby BW
    Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):523-34. PubMed ID: 23426091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Dynamic relation between working memory capacity and speech recognition in noise during the first 6 months of hearing aid use.
    Ng EH; Classon E; Larsby B; Arlinger S; Lunner T; Rudner M; Rönnberg J
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Experiments with classroom FM amplification.
    Boothroyd A; Iglehart F
    Ear Hear; 1998 Jun; 19(3):202-17. PubMed ID: 9657595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Comparison of speech discrimination in noise and directional hearing with 2 different sound processors of a bone-anchored hearing system in adults with unilateral severe or profound sensorineural hearing loss.
    Wesarg T; Aschendorff A; Laszig R; Beck R; Schild C; Hassepass F; Kroeger S; Hocke T; Arndt S
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Aug; 34(6):1064-70. PubMed ID: 23856626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB; Dubno JR
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Differences in speech discrimination in the elderly as a function of type of competing noise: speech-babble or cafeteria.
    Kaplan H; Pickett JM
    Audiology; 1982; 21(4):325-33. PubMed ID: 7103839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Long-term effects of monaural, binaural and no amplification in subjects with bilateral hearing loss.
    Gelfand SA; Silman S; Ross L
    Scand Audiol; 1987; 16(4):201-7. PubMed ID: 3438702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Bilateral cochlear implantation for hearing-impaired children: criterion of candidacy derived from an observational study.
    Lovett RE; Vickers DA; Summerfield AQ
    Ear Hear; 2015 Jan; 36(1):14-23. PubMed ID: 25170781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field.
    Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Speech-reception threshold in noise for hearing-impaired listeners in conditions with a varying amplitude-frequency response.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Festen JM; Plomp R
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():202-6. PubMed ID: 2356728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss.
    Shi LF; Doherty KA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1328-40. PubMed ID: 18664685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Acoustic and perceptual effects of magnifying interaural difference cues in a simulated "binaural" hearing aid.
    de Taillez T; Grimm G; Kollmeier B; Neher T
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S81-S91. PubMed ID: 28395561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Development and assessment of two fixed-array microphones for use with hearing aids.
    Bilsen FA; Soede W; Berkhout AJ
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):73-81. PubMed ID: 8263830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.