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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7060844)

  • 1. The effects of sophistication on three threshold tests for subjects with simulated hearing loss.
    Martin FN; Shipp DB
    Ear Hear; 1982; 3(1):34-6. PubMed ID: 7060844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of sophistication on four tests for nonorganic hearing loss.
    Monro DA; Martin FN
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1977 Nov; 42(4):528-34. PubMed ID: 916646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reliability in the determination of speech reception threshold (SRT).
    Hagerman B
    Scand Audiol; 1979; 8(4):195-202. PubMed ID: 531473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Efficiency of Stenger test in confirming profound, unilateral pseudohypacusis.
    Durmaz A; Karahatay S; Satar B; Birkent H; Hidir Y
    J Laryngol Otol; 2009 Aug; 123(8):840-4. PubMed ID: 19296863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On the calibration of two commercially recorded versions of CID auditory test W-22.
    Gengel RW; Kupperman GL
    Ear Hear; 1980; 1(4):229-31. PubMed ID: 7409362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Test-retest variability in testing hearing of speech.
    Hughes EC; Arthur RH; Johnson RL
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(1):17-20. PubMed ID: 511653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Use of a monosyllabic adaptive speech test (MAST) with young children.
    Mackie K; Dermody P
    J Speech Hear Res; 1986 Jun; 29(2):275-81. PubMed ID: 3724121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. [Clinical and experimental studies of Stenger's experiment with speech].
    Schmäl F; Kumpf W
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1995 Mar; 74(3):167-71. PubMed ID: 7755854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences.
    Plomp R; Mimpen AM
    Audiology; 1979; 18(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 760724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The influence of the guess factor on the speech reception threshold.
    Burke LE; Nerbonne MA
    J Am Aud Soc; 1978; 4(3):87-90. PubMed ID: 299592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Interlist equivalency of the CID W-22 word lists presented in quiet and in noise.
    Loven FC; Hawkins DB
    Ear Hear; 1983; 4(2):91-7. PubMed ID: 6840418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [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]  

  • 14. On the auditory and cognitive functions that may explain an individual's elevation of the speech reception threshold in noise.
    Houtgast T; Festen JM
    Int J Audiol; 2008 Jun; 47(6):287-95. PubMed ID: 18569101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Identification of pseudohypacusis using speech recognition thresholds.
    Schlauch RS; Arnce KD; Olson LM; Sanchez S; Doyle TN
    Ear Hear; 1996 Jun; 17(3):229-36. PubMed ID: 8807265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise.
    Smits C; Theo Goverts S; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1693-706. PubMed ID: 23464039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Characteristics, advantages, and limits of matrix tests].
    Brand T; Wagener KC
    HNO; 2017 Mar; 65(3):182-188. PubMed ID: 27538937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids.
    Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1986 Feb; 79(2):465-71. PubMed ID: 3950200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A model for the speech-reception threshold in noise without and with a hearing aid.
    Plomp R; Duquesnoy AJ
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1982; 15():95-111. PubMed ID: 6955931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. User-operated speech in noise test: implementation and comparison with a traditional test.
    Pedersen ER; Juhl PM
    Int J Audiol; 2014 May; 53(5):336-44. PubMed ID: 24329491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.