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 *

72 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8194679)

  • 1. Aided listener preferences in laboratory versus real-world environments.
    Punch JL; Robb R; Shovels AH
    Ear Hear; 1994 Feb; 15(1):50-61. PubMed ID: 8194679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Evaluation of a "direct-comparison" approach to automatic switching in omnidirectional/directional hearing aids.
    Summers V; Grant KW; Walden BE; Cord MT; Surr RK; Elhilali M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2008 Oct; 19(9):708-20. PubMed ID: 19418710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Speech-clarity judgments of hearing-aid-processed speech in noise: differing polar patterns and acoustic environments.
    Amlani AM; Rakerd B; Punch JL
    Int J Audiol; 2006 Jun; 45(6):319-30. PubMed ID: 16777778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The influence of audiovisual ceiling performance on the relationship between reverberation and directional benefit: perception and prediction.
    Wu YH; Bentler RA
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):604-14. PubMed ID: 22677815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of sound quality judgments for monaural and binaural hearing aid processed stimuli.
    Balfour PB; Hawkins DB
    Ear Hear; 1992 Oct; 13(5):331-9. PubMed ID: 1487093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of hearing-aid dynamic range compression on spatial perception in a reverberant environment.
    Hassager HG; Wiinberg A; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2556. PubMed ID: 28464692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The relationship between listening conditions and alternative amplification schemes for multiple memory hearing aids.
    Keidser G
    Ear Hear; 1995 Dec; 16(6):575-86. PubMed ID: 8747807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands.
    Hornsby BW
    Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):523-34. PubMed ID: 23426091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Speech recognition for bilaterally asymmetric and symmetric hearing aid microphone modes in simulated classroom environments.
    Ricketts TA; Picou EM
    Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):601-9. PubMed ID: 23524508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of noise source configuration on directional benefit using symmetric and asymmetric directional hearing aid fittings.
    Hornsby BW; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 17496669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Listener Factors Explain Little Variability in Self-Adjusted Hearing Aid Gain.
    Perry TT; Nelson PB; Van Tasell DJ
    Trends Hear; 2019; 23():2331216519837124. PubMed ID: 30880645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. An examination of speech reception thresholds measured in a simulated reverberant cafeteria environment.
    Best V; Keidser G; Buchholz JM; Freeston K
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54(10):682-90. PubMed ID: 25853616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Acoustic and perceptual effects of magnifying interaural difference cues in a simulated "binaural" hearing aid.
    de Taillez T; Grimm G; Kollmeier B; Neher T
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S81-S91. PubMed ID: 28395561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: perception and prediction.
    Wu YH; Stangl E
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):333-41. PubMed ID: 23334355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.