1013 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8153558)
1. 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]
2. Speech pattern hearing aids for the profoundly hearing impaired: speech perception and auditory abilities.
Faulkner A; Ball V; Rosen S; Moore BC; Fourcin A
J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Apr; 91(4 Pt 1):2136-55. PubMed ID: 1597605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Psychoacoustic aspects of speech pattern coding for the deaf.
Faulkner A; Fourcin AJ; Moore BC
Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990; 469():172-80. PubMed ID: 2356724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Auditory pattern perception in the profoundly hearing impaired and lipreading of Dutch phonemes.
van Son N; Bosman AJ; Lamoré PJ; Smoorenburg GF
Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():111-23. PubMed ID: 8153557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
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. Binaural noise-reduction hearing aid scheme with real-time processing in the frequency domain.
Kollmeier B; Peissig J; Hohmann V
Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():28-38. PubMed ID: 8153562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Children's speech recognition scores: the Speech Intelligibility Index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level.
Scollie SD
Ear Hear; 2008 Aug; 29(4):543-56. PubMed ID: 18469717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The design and testing of a noise reduction algorithm based on spectral subtraction.
Elberling C; Ludvigsen C; Keidser G
Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():39-49. PubMed ID: 8153563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of a programmable 3-channel compression hearing system with single-channel AGC instruments.
Kiessling J; Steffens T
Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():67-74. PubMed ID: 8153566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived speech quality.
Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC
Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):420-36. PubMed ID: 20440116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of the desired sensation level [input/output] algorithm for adults with hearing loss: the acceptable range for amplified conversational speech.
Jenstad LM; Bagatto MP; Seewald RC; Scollie SD; Cornelisse LE; Scicluna R
Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):793-811. PubMed ID: 17982367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing.
Rudner M; Foo C; Rönnberg J; Lunner T
Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):879-92. PubMed ID: 17982373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
