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 *

199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8227747)

  • 1. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1993 Oct; 94(4):2050-62. PubMed ID: 8227747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Vickers DA
    Br J Audiol; 1995 Jun; 29(3):131-43. PubMed ID: 8574199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Simulation of the effect of threshold elevation and loudness recruitment combined with reduced frequency selectivity on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Nejime Y; Moore BC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1997 Jul; 102(1):603-15. PubMed ID: 9228821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of real and simulated hearing impairment in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing loss.
    Moore BC; Vickers DA; Glasberg BR; Baer T
    Br J Audiol; 1997 Aug; 31(4):227-45. PubMed ID: 9307819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Moore BC; Johnson JS; Clark TM; Pluvinage V
    Ear Hear; 1992 Oct; 13(5):349-70. PubMed ID: 1487095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of the effect of speech-rate slowing on speech intelligibility in noise using a simulation of cochlear hearing loss.
    Nejime Y; Moore BC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Jan; 103(1):572-6. PubMed ID: 9440342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device.
    Keidser G; Grant F
    Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):501-15. PubMed ID: 11770672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. An initial-fit comparison of two generic hearing aid prescriptive methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to individuals having mild to moderately severe high-frequency hearing loss.
    Johnson EE
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Feb; 24(2):138-50. PubMed ID: 23357807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in Hearing Aids Fit to Children with Severe or Profound Hearing Loss: Goodness of Fit-to-Targets, Impacts on Predicted Loudness and Speech Intelligibility.
    Ching TY; Quar TK; Johnson EE; Newall P; Sharma M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):260-74. PubMed ID: 25751694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 hearing aid fitting methods.
    Moore BC; Sęk A
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 22878351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of the NAL(R) and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids.
    Peters RW; Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
    Br J Audiol; 2000 Feb; 34(1):21-36. PubMed ID: 10759075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Clear speech perception in acoustic and electric hearing.
    Liu S; Del Rio E; Bradlow AR; Zeng FG
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2004 Oct; 116(4 Pt 1):2374-83. PubMed ID: 15532668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people.
    Peters RW; Moore BC; Baer T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Jan; 103(1):577-87. PubMed ID: 9440343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: II. Hearing aids with multi-channel compression.
    Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Stone MA; Glasberg BR
    Br J Audiol; 1999 Jun; 33(3):157-70. PubMed ID: 10439142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting.
    Ching TY; Dillon H; Katsch R; Byrne D
    Ear Hear; 2001 Jun; 22(3):212-24. PubMed ID: 11409857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Villchur revisited: another look at automatic gain control simulation of recruiting hearing loss.
    Duchnowski P; Zurek PM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1995 Dec; 98(6):3170-81. PubMed ID: 8550941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Word recognition for temporally and spectrally distorted materials: the effects of age and hearing loss.
    Smith SL; Pichora-Fuller MK; Wilson RH; Macdonald EN
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(3):349-66. PubMed ID: 22343546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.