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 *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7103839)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Effects of dichotic/diotic versus monotic presentation on speech understanding in noise in elderly hearing-impaired listeners.
    Kaplan H; Pickett JM
    Ear Hear; 1981; 2(5):202-7. PubMed ID: 7297784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How difficult is difficult? Speech perception in noise in the elderly hearing impaired.
    Lavie L; Banai K; Attias J; Karni A
    J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol; 2014 Sep; 25(3):313-6. PubMed ID: 25153230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing AIDS.
    Shanks JE; Wilson RH; Larson V; Williams D
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):280-90. PubMed ID: 12195170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Speech Perception in Noise and Listening Effort of Older Adults With Nonlinear Frequency Compression Hearing Aids.
    Shehorn J; Marrone N; Muller T
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(2):215-225. PubMed ID: 28806193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Preferred listening levels for linear and slow-acting compression hearing aids.
    Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Hellman S; Levitt H
    Ear Hear; 1995 Aug; 16(4):407-16. PubMed ID: 8549896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise produced by two-channel compression hearing aids.
    Moore BC; Laurence RF; Wright D
    Br J Audiol; 1985 Aug; 19(3):175-87. PubMed ID: 4063555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Moore BC; Johnson JS; Clark TM; Pluvinage V
    Ear Hear; 1992 Oct; 13(5):349-70. PubMed ID: 1487095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of noise and reverberation on binaural and monaural word identification by subjects with various audiograms.
    Nabelek AK; Mason D
    J Speech Hear Res; 1981 Sep; 24(3):375-83. PubMed ID: 7300279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of automatic signal-processing amplification on speech recognition in noise for persons with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Dempsey JJ
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 1987; 96(3 Pt 1):251-3. PubMed ID: 3605946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    Br J Audiol; 1988 May; 22(2):93-104. PubMed ID: 3390637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of the effect on consonant discrimination of combining low- and high-frequency passbands in normal, congenital, and adventitious hearing-impaired subjects.
    Franklin B
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(3):168-76. PubMed ID: 528295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Effects of transient noise reduction algorithms on speech intelligibility and ratings of hearing aid users.
    DiGiovanni JJ; Davlin EA; Nagaraj NK
    Am J Audiol; 2011 Dec; 20(2):140-50. PubMed ID: 21940982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech.
    Ng EH; Rudner M; Lunner T; Rönnberg J
    Ear Hear; 2015 Jan; 36(1):82-91. PubMed ID: 25166628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of a speech enhancement strategy with normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Jamieson DG; Brennan RL; Cornelisse LE
    Ear Hear; 1995 Jun; 16(3):274-86. PubMed ID: 7672476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Factors governing speech reception benefits of adaptive linear filtering for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Rankovic CM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Feb; 103(2):1043-57. PubMed ID: 9479758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fundamental frequency information for speech recognition via bimodal stimulation: cochlear implant in one ear and hearing aid in the other.
    Shpak T; Most T; Luntz M
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(1):97-109. PubMed ID: 24141594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.