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 *

74 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6621017)

  • 1. Test of the assumptions underlying comparative hearing aid evaluations.
    Walden BE; Schwartz DM; Williams DL; Holum-Hardegen LL; Crowley JM
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1983 Aug; 48(3):264-73. PubMed ID: 6621017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reliability of monosyllabic discrimination tests in white noise for differentiating among hearing aids.
    Beattie RC; Edgerton BJ
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1976 Nov; 41(4):464-76. PubMed ID: 994477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Development of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP).
    Cox RM; Gilmore C
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Jun; 33(2):343-57. PubMed ID: 2359275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain.
    Humes LE; Christensen LA; Bess FH; Hedley-Williams A
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1997 Jun; 40(3):666-85. PubMed ID: 9210122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Active middle ear implant compared with open-fit hearing aid in sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.
    Boeheim K; Pok SM; Schloegel M; Filzmoser P
    Otol Neurotol; 2010 Apr; 31(3):424-9. PubMed ID: 20042907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Prescribing a hearing aid in noise-induced hearing loss].
    Brusis T
    HNO; 2001 Aug; 49(8):670-1. PubMed ID: 11544892
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of reducing low-frequency amplification on consonant perception in quiet and noise.
    Gordon-Salant S
    J Speech Hear Res; 1984 Dec; 27(4):483-93. PubMed ID: 6521454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial. NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group.
    Larson VD; Williams DW; Henderson WG; Luethke LE; Beck LB; Noffsinger D; Wilson RH; Dobie RA; Haskell GB; Bratt GW; Shanks JE; Stelmachowicz P; Studebaker GA; Boysen AE; Donahue A; Canalis R; Fausti SA; Rappaport BZ
    JAMA; 2000 Oct; 284(14):1806-13. PubMed ID: 11025833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effects of high-frequency amplification on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users with varying degrees of high-frequency hearing loss.
    Plyler PN; Fleck EL
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Jun; 49(3):616-27. PubMed ID: 16787899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life I: The Patients' Perspective.
    Cox RM; Johnson JA; Xu J
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(4):e224-37. PubMed ID: 26881981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of extended-range frequency-response amplification in hearing aids.
    Forrester JI; Raffin MJ
    J Aud Res; 1982 Jan; 22(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 7187908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. High-frequency consonant word discrimination lists in hearing aid evaluation.
    Dennison LB; Kelly BR
    J Am Aud Soc; 1978; 4(3):91-7. PubMed ID: 299593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Response time and percentage correct as measures of hearing aid performance.
    Seavertson JM; McLennan RO
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1983 Nov; 48(4):409-14. PubMed ID: 6645436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Hearing aids for high-frequency hearing loss.
    Davies JE; John DG; Jones MJ
    Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci; 1990 Aug; 15(4):321-6. PubMed ID: 2225500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparative evaluation of the Maryland NU 6 auditory test.
    Causey GD; Hermanson CL; Hood LJ; Bowling LS
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1983 Feb; 48(1):62-9. PubMed ID: 6620995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and its relationship to aided reported handicap and hearing aid satisfaction.
    Saunders GH; Forsline A
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):229-42. PubMed ID: 16672792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of monaural hearing aid use on dichotic test results for individuals with high-frequency hearing impairment.
    Surr RK; Montgomery AA; Mueller HG
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1986 May; 51(2):161-9. PubMed ID: 3702363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Advantages of a new miniature hearing aid for mild to moderate hearing loss.
    Goode RL; Krusemark J
    Laryngoscope; 1999 Dec; 109(12):1919-23. PubMed ID: 10591347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid.
    Humes LE; Christensen L; Thomas T; Bess FH; Hedley-Williams A; Bentler R
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1999 Feb; 42(1):65-79. PubMed ID: 10025544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Factors influencing use of hearing aids.
    Surr RK; Schuchman GI; Montgomery AA
    Arch Otolaryngol; 1978 Dec; 104(12):732-6. PubMed ID: 718532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.