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 *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7963011)

  • 21. Effects of Hearing Loss and Fast-Acting Compression on Amplitude Modulation Perception and Speech Intelligibility.
    Wiinberg A; Jepsen ML; Epp B; Dau T
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):45-54. PubMed ID: 29668566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison of performance with wide dynamic range compression and linear amplification.
    Kam AC; Wong LL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1999 Sep; 10(8):445-57. PubMed ID: 10813645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Perceptual Evaluation of Signal-to-Noise-Ratio-Aware Dynamic Range Compression in Hearing Aids.
    Kowalewski B; Dau T; May T
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520930531. PubMed ID: 32573373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The effect of presentation level and compression characteristics on sentence recognition in modulated noise.
    Olsen HL; Olofsson A; Hagerman B
    Int J Audiol; 2004 May; 43(5):283-94. PubMed ID: 15357412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The design and evaluation of a hearing aid with trainable amplification parameters.
    Zakis JA; Dillon H; McDermott HJ
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):812-30. PubMed ID: 17982368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The effect on speech intelligibility of varying compression time constants in a digital hearing aid.
    Moore BC; Stainsby TH; Alcántara JI; Kühnel V
    Int J Audiol; 2004; 43(7):399-409. PubMed ID: 15515639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Determination of preferred parameters for multichannel compression using individually fitted simulated hearing AIDS and paired comparisons.
    Moore BC; Füllgrabe C; Stone MA
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):556-68. PubMed ID: 21285878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The performance of an automatic acoustic-based program classifier compared to hearing aid users' manual selection of listening programs.
    Searchfield GD; Linford T; Kobayashi K; Crowhen D; Latzel M
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):201-212. PubMed ID: 29069954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects.
    Hagerman B
    Int J Audiol; 2002 Sep; 41(6):321-9. PubMed ID: 12353604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Consonant perception with linear and compression amplification.
    Hickson L; Dodd B; Byrne D
    Scand Audiol; 1995; 24(3):175-84. PubMed ID: 8552977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A compact disc containing simulations of hearing impairment.
    Moore BC
    Br J Audiol; 1997 Oct; 31(5):353-7. PubMed ID: 9373744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Dynamic relation between working memory capacity and speech recognition in noise during the first 6 months of hearing aid use.
    Ng EH; Classon E; Larsby B; Arlinger S; Lunner T; Rudner M; Rönnberg J
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Quality rating test of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA Clinical Trial.
    Noffsinger D; Haskell GB; Larson VD; Williams DW; Wilson E; Plunkett S; Kenworthy D
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):291-300. PubMed ID: 12195171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Music preferences with hearing aids: effects of signal properties, compression settings, and listener characteristics.
    Croghan NB; Arehart KH; Kates JM
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(5):e170-84. PubMed ID: 25010635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of fast-acting high-frequency compression on the intelligibility of speech in steady and fluctuating background sounds.
    Stone MA; Moore BC; Wojtczak M; Gudgin E
    Br J Audiol; 1997 Aug; 31(4):257-73. PubMed ID: 9307821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Client preferences for compression threshold in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aids.
    Barker C; Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 1999 Apr; 20(2):127-39. PubMed ID: 10229514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids.
    Stone MA; Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Glasberg BR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Dec; 106(6):3603-19. PubMed ID: 10615700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Double blind comparison of three hearing aid circuits with new hearing aid users.
    Hayes DE; Cormier KL
    Scand Audiol; 2000; 29(1):10-9. PubMed ID: 10718672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effect of release time on preferred gain and speech acoustics.
    Muller TF; Harris FP; Ellison JC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2004 Oct; 15(9):605-15. PubMed ID: 15575335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Acoustical and Perceptual Comparison of Noise Reduction and Compression in Hearing Aids.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2015 Aug; 58(4):1363-76. PubMed ID: 26090648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.