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 *

93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6706023)

  • 1. Effect of low-frequency hearing aid response on four measures of speech perception.
    Tecca JE; Goldstein DP
    Ear Hear; 1984; 5(1):22-9. PubMed ID: 6706023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Transitioning hearing aid users with severe and profound loss to a new gain/frequency response: benefit, perception, and acceptance.
    Convery E; Keidser G
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Mar; 22(3):168-80. PubMed ID: 21545769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Hearing aid quality judgments in reverberant and nonreverberant environments using a magnitude estimation procedure.
    Harris RW; Goldstein DP
    Audiology; 1985; 24(1):32-43. PubMed ID: 3977782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Telephone listening ability for hearing-impaired individuals.
    Holmes AE; Frank T
    Ear Hear; 1984; 5(2):96-100. PubMed ID: 6724177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The application of an adaptive procedure to the California consonant test for hearing aid evaluation.
    Tecca JE; Binnie CA
    Ear Hear; 1982; 3(2):72-6. PubMed ID: 7075872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Preference for and performance with damped and undamped hearing aids by listeners with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Davis LA; Davidson SA
    J Speech Hear Res; 1996 Jun; 39(3):483-93. PubMed ID: 8783128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of wireless and acoustic hearing aid-based telephone listening strategies.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(2):209-20. PubMed ID: 20808225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Semantic context improves speech intelligibility and reduces listening effort for listeners with hearing impairment.
    Holmes E; Folkeard P; Johnsrude IS; Scollie S
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jul; 57(7):483-492. PubMed ID: 29415585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 hearing aid fitting methods.
    Moore BC; Sęk A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 22878351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise.
    Studebaker GA; Bisset JD; Van Ort DM; Hoffnung SU
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1982 Jul; 72(1):80-92. PubMed ID: 7108046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids.
    Ricketts T; Henry P; Gnewikow D
    Ear Hear; 2003 Oct; 24(5):424-39. PubMed ID: 14534412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Programmable hearing aid with multichannel compression.
    Mangold S; Leijon A
    Scand Audiol; 1979; 8(2):121-6. PubMed ID: 515689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of an articulation-index based model for predicting the effects of adaptive frequency response hearing aids.
    Fabry DA; Van Tasell DJ
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Dec; 33(4):676-89. PubMed ID: 2273883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of Speech-Evoked Envelope Following Responses as an Objective Aided Outcome Measure: Effect of Stimulus Level, Bandwidth, and Amplification in Adults With Hearing Loss.
    Easwar V; Purcell DW; Aiken SJ; Parsa V; Scollie SD
    Ear Hear; 2015; 36(6):635-52. PubMed ID: 26226606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids.
    Davidson LS
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):493-507. PubMed ID: 16957500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA; Hornsby BW
    Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):e52-64. PubMed ID: 23416751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing the efficacy of hearing-aid amplification using a phoneme test.
    Scheidiger C; Allen JB; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Mar; 141(3):1739. PubMed ID: 28372055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Hearing aid evaluation: predicting speech gain from insertion gain.
    Dillon H
    J Speech Hear Res; 1993 Jun; 36(3):621-33. PubMed ID: 8331918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.