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 *

71 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7412230)

  • 1. The SSI and NU6 in clinical hearing aid evaluation.
    Orchik DJ; Roddy N
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1980 Aug; 45(3):401-7. PubMed ID: 7412230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of multi-talker competing speech on the variability of the California Consonant Test.
    Surr RK; Schwartz DM
    Ear Hear; 1980; 1(6):319-23. PubMed ID: 7439565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Performance-intensity functions as a predictor for binaural amplification.
    Mueller HG; Grimes AM; Jerome JJ
    Ear Hear; 1981; 2(5):211-4. PubMed ID: 7297786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Hearing Aids Benefit Recognition of Words in Emotional Speech but Not Emotion Identification.
    Goy H; Pichora-Fuller MK; Singh G; Russo FA
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518801736. PubMed ID: 30249171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Speech recognition and the Articulation Index for normal and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Kamm CA; Dirks DD; Bell TS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1985 Jan; 77(1):281-8. PubMed ID: 3973220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of various front-to-back ratios on the performance of directional microphone hearing aids.
    Mueller HG; Johnson RM
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(1):30-4. PubMed ID: 511656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A comparative evaluation of four hearing-aid selection procedures. II--Quality judgements as measures of benefit.
    Green R; Day S; Bamford J
    Br J Audiol; 1989 Aug; 23(3):201-6. PubMed ID: 2790304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. New developments in speech pattern element hearing aids for the profoundly deaf.
    Faulkner A; Walliker JR; Howard IS; Ball V; Fourcin AJ
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():124-35. PubMed ID: 8153558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Prediction of hearing aid users' satisfaction.
    Gerber SE; Fisher LB
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 511657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Behavioral assessment of adaptive feedback equalization in a digital hearing aid.
    French-St George M; Wood DJ; Engebretson AM
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 8263825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners.
    Cox RM; Alexander GC; Rivera IM
    J Speech Hear Res; 1991 Aug; 34(4):904-15. PubMed ID: 1956197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Test-retest reliability of a distinctive feature difference test for hearing aid evaluation.
    Feeney MP; Franks JR
    Ear Hear; 1982; 3(2):59-65. PubMed ID: 7075870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Synthetic sentence identification as a function of the age of the listener.
    Orchik DJ; Burgess J
    J Am Audiol Soc; 1977; 3(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 893200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Use of the California Consonant Test in evaluating hearing aids.
    Edgerton BJ; Danhauer JL; Simmons FJ
    Am J Otol; 1986 Mar; 7(2):104-9. PubMed ID: 3963153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers.
    Humes LE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Sep; 112(3 Pt 1):1112-32. PubMed ID: 12243159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: Part I--laboratory tests.
    Wu YH; Bentler RA
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):22-34. PubMed ID: 19864954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.