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: 6510580)

  • 1. SSW test performance-intensity functions for hearing-impaired adults.
    Flynn PA; Danhauer JL; Gerber SE; Goller MC; Arnst DJ
    Ear Hear; 1984; 5(6):346-8. PubMed ID: 6510580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Four spondee threshold procedures: a comparison.
    Wall LG; Davis LA; Myers DK
    Ear Hear; 1984; 5(3):171-4. PubMed ID: 6734969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Comparison of Word-Recognition Performances on the Auditec and VA Recorded Versions of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by Young Listeners with Normal Hearing and by Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using a Randomized Presentation-Level Paradigm.
    Wilson RH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 May; 30(5):370-395. PubMed ID: 30969910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Verification of the corrected Staggered Spondaic Word (SSW) score in adults with cochlear hearing loss.
    Arnst DJ; Doyle PC
    Ear Hear; 1983; 4(5):243-6. PubMed ID: 6628848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reliability of threshold, slope, and PB max for monosyllabic words.
    Beattie RC; Raffin MJ
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1985 May; 50(2):166-78. PubMed ID: 3990262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of presentation levels to maximize word recognition scores.
    Guthrie LA; Mackersie CL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2009 Jun; 20(6):381-90. PubMed ID: 19594086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparing normal hearing and hearing-impaired subject's performance on the Northwestern Auditory Test Number 6, California Consonant Test, and Pascoe's High-Frequency Word Test.
    Maroonroge S; Diefendorf AO
    Ear Hear; 1984; 5(6):356-60. PubMed ID: 6510582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of varying the amplitude-frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences for hearing-impaired listeners.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Aug; 86(2):621-8. PubMed ID: 2768675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Staggered Spondaic Word Test performance in a group of older adults: a preliminary report.
    Arnst DJ
    Ear Hear; 1982; 3(3):118-23. PubMed ID: 7095319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Experiences with the distorted Freiburg Speech Test--diagnosis and rehabilitation of hearing disorders].
    Dieroff HG; Mangoldt W
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1989 Jul; 68(7):372-8. PubMed ID: 2765049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. An evaluation of speech audiometry by bone conduction in hearing-impaired adults.
    Karlsen EA; Goetzinger CP
    J Aud Res; 1980 Apr; 20(2):89-95. PubMed ID: 7345063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired.
    Plomp R
    J Speech Hear Res; 1986 Jun; 29(2):146-54. PubMed ID: 3724108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Acoustic reflex threshold and loudness in patients with unilateral hearing losses.
    Kawase T; Hidaka H; Ikeda K; Hashimoto S; Takasaka T
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 1998; 255(1):7-11. PubMed ID: 9592667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise.
    Ozimek E; Warzybok A; Kutzner D
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):444-54. PubMed ID: 20482292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Normal and hearing-impaired word recognition scores for monosyllabic words in quiet and noise.
    Beattie RC; Barr T; Roup C
    Br J Audiol; 1997 Jun; 31(3):153-64. PubMed ID: 9276098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effect of intensity perturbations on speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    van Schijndel NH; Houtgast T; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 May; 109(5 Pt 1):2202-10. PubMed ID: 11386571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Relations between intelligibility of narrow-band speech and auditory functions, both in the 1-kHz frequency region.
    Noordhoek IM; Houtgast T; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Mar; 109(3):1197-212. PubMed ID: 11303933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The binaural intelligibility level difference in hearing-impaired listeners: the role of supra-threshold deficits.
    Goverts ST; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 May; 127(5):3073-84. PubMed ID: 21117756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The relationship between the uncomfortable loudness level and the acoustic reflex threshold for pure tones in normally-hearing and impaired listeners--a meta-analysis.
    Olsen SO
    Audiology; 1999; 38(2):61-8. PubMed ID: 10206514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.