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)

  • 41. Some aspects of methodology in speech audiometry.
    Hagerman B
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1984; 21():1-25. PubMed ID: 6589731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The effect of varying the amplitude-frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences for hearing-impaired listeners.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Aug; 86(2):621-8. PubMed ID: 2768675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Multichannel compression hearing aids: experiments and consideration on clinical applicability.
    Barfod J
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1978; (6):315-40. PubMed ID: 292146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. On the limited transfer of information with noise-induced hearing loss.
    Smoorenburg GF
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():38-46. PubMed ID: 2356737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: II. Fluctuating noise.
    Smits C; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):3004-15. PubMed ID: 23654404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived music quality.
    Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Mar; 50(3):177-90. PubMed ID: 21319935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: Part II--field tests.
    Wu YH; Bentler RA
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):35-46. PubMed ID: 19773657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Speech understanding in noise with an eyeglass hearing aid: asymmetric fitting and the head shadow benefit of anterior microphones.
    Mens LH
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 21047292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. [Clinical study of speech understanding in noise].
    Tremblay C; Picard M; Barbarosie T; Banville R
    Audiology; 1991; 30(4):212-40. PubMed ID: 1755750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. [Upward spread of masking in normal and abnormal ears].
    Picard M; Couture-Metz F
    Audiology; 1985; 24(2):81-91. PubMed ID: 3994593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing.
    Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Oct; 88(4):1725-36. PubMed ID: 2262629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Benefit of temporal fine structure to speech perception in noise measured with controlled temporal envelopes.
    Eaves JM; Summerfield AQ; Kitterick PT
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Jul; 130(1):501-7. PubMed ID: 21786915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users.
    Ng EH; Rudner M; Lunner T; Pedersen MS; Rönnberg J
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jul; 52(7):433-41. PubMed ID: 23550584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, part 2: improving test sensitivity for noise-induced hearing loss.
    Leensen MC; de Laat JA; Snik AF; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):835-48. PubMed ID: 21970351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests.
    Francart T; van Wieringen A; Wouters J
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 21091261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing.
    Jørgensen S; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1475-87. PubMed ID: 21895088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility.
    Johnson EE; Dillon H
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011; 22(7):441-59. PubMed ID: 21993050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Effects of reverberation and masker fluctuations on binaural unmasking of speech.
    George EL; Festen JM; Goverts ST
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1581-91. PubMed ID: 22978887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    Audiology; 1986; 25(4-5):210-26. PubMed ID: 3566630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.