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 *

482 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8153556)

  • 1. The efficacy of a multichannel hearing aid in which the gain is controlled by the minima in the temporal signal envelope.
    Festen JM; van Dijkhuizen JN; Plomp R
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():101-10. PubMed ID: 8153556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Speech-reception threshold in noise for hearing-impaired listeners in conditions with a varying amplitude-frequency response.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Festen JM; Plomp R
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():202-6. PubMed ID: 2356728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of frequency-selective attenuation on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in conditions of low-frequency noise.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1991 Aug; 90(2 Pt 1):885-94. PubMed ID: 1939893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone.
    Boothroyd A
    Ear Hear; 2004 Feb; 25(1):22-33. PubMed ID: 14770015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Noise, amplification, and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design.
    Plomp R
    Ear Hear; 1994 Feb; 15(1):2-12. PubMed ID: 8194676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
    Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Considerations on adaptive gain and frequency response in hearing aids.
    Festen JM; van Dijkhuizen JN; Plomp R
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():196-201. PubMed ID: 2356727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
    Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Learning effect observed for the speech reception threshold in interrupted noise with normal hearing listeners.
    Rhebergen KS; Versfeld NJ; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2008 Apr; 47(4):185-8. PubMed ID: 18389414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and its relationship to aided reported handicap and hearing aid satisfaction.
    Saunders GH; Forsline A
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):229-42. PubMed ID: 16672792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Understanding compression: modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids.
    Kates JM
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):395-409. PubMed ID: 20225931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise.
    Christiansen C; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1655-66. PubMed ID: 22978894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Speech discrimination with an 8-channel compression hearing aid and conventional aids in background of speech-band noise.
    Yund EW; Simon HJ; Efron R
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):161-80. PubMed ID: 3430375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test.
    Cameron S; Dillon H; Newall P
    Ear Hear; 2006 Feb; 27(1):30-42. PubMed ID: 16446563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Estimates of basilar-membrane nonlinearity effects on masking of tones and speech.
    Dubno JR; Horwitz AR; Ahlstrom JB
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb; 28(1):2-17. PubMed ID: 17204895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Bernstein JG; Grant KW
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May; 125(5):3358-72. PubMed ID: 19425676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level.
    Summers V; Molis MR
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2004 Apr; 47(2):245-56. PubMed ID: 15157127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.