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 *

348 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8549896)

  • 1. Preferred listening levels for linear and slow-acting compression hearing aids.
    Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Hellman S; Levitt H
    Ear Hear; 1995 Aug; 16(4):407-16. PubMed ID: 8549896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: paired-comparison judgments of quality.
    Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Hellman S; Levitt H
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Sep; 96(3):1471-8. PubMed ID: 7963011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing AIDS.
    Shanks JE; Wilson RH; Larson V; Williams D
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):280-90. PubMed ID: 12195170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Duration, compression, and the aided loudness discomfort level.
    Fortune T; Scheller T
    Ear Hear; 2000 Aug; 21(4):329-41. PubMed ID: 10981609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of Modified Hearing Aid Fittings on Loudness and Tone Quality for Different Acoustic Scenes.
    Moore BC; Baer T; Ives DT; Marriage J; Salorio-Corbetto M
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(4):483-91. PubMed ID: 26928003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speech intelligibility benefits of hearing AIDS at various input levels.
    Kuk F; Lau CC; Korhonen P; Crose B
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):275-88. PubMed ID: 25751695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    Br J Audiol; 1988 May; 22(2):93-104. PubMed ID: 3390637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Determination of preferred parameters for multichannel compression using individually fitted simulated hearing AIDS and paired comparisons.
    Moore BC; Füllgrabe C; Stone MA
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(5):556-68. PubMed ID: 21285878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Client preferences for compression threshold in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aids.
    Barker C; Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 1999 Apr; 20(2):127-39. PubMed ID: 10229514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility.
    Hansen M
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):369-80. PubMed ID: 12195179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A digital filterbank hearing aid: three digital signal processing algorithms--user preference and performance.
    Lunner T; Hellgren J; Arlinger S; Elberling C
    Ear Hear; 1997 Oct; 18(5):373-87. PubMed ID: 9360861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Experiments with classroom FM amplification.
    Boothroyd A; Iglehart F
    Ear Hear; 1998 Jun; 19(3):202-17. PubMed ID: 9657595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 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. Do hearing loss and cognitive function modulate benefit from different binaural noise-reduction settings?
    Neher T; Grimm G; Hohmann V; Kollmeier B
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(3):e52-62. PubMed ID: 24351610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Dual Variable Speed Compressor over a Single Fixed Speed Compressor.
    Kuk F; Slugocki C; Korhonen P; Seper E; Hau O
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019; 30(7):590-606. PubMed ID: 30420004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.