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 *

316 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8698159)

  • 1. Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures.
    Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 1996 Apr; 17(2):124-32. PubMed ID: 8698159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids.
    Stelmachowicz PG; Dalzell S; Peterson D; Kopun J; Lewis DL; Hoover BE
    Ear Hear; 1998 Apr; 19(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 9562535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures.
    Byrne D; Dillon H; Ching T; Katsch R; Keidser G
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2001 Jan; 12(1):37-51. PubMed ID: 11214977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing-aid fitting: predicted speech intelligibility and loudness.
    Ching TY; Johnson EE; Hou S; Dillon H; Zhang V; Burns L; van Buynder P; Wong A; Flynn C
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Dec; 52 Suppl 2(0 2):S29-38. PubMed ID: 24350692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Accuracy of predicted ear canal speech levels using the VIOLA input/output-based fitting strategy.
    Cox RM; Flamme GA
    Ear Hear; 1998 Apr; 19(2):139-48. PubMed ID: 9562536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Modern prescription theory and application: realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing AIDS.
    Johnson EE
    Trends Amplif; 2013; 17(3):143-70. PubMed ID: 24253361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Threshold-based fitting methods for non-linear (WDRC) hearing instruments--comparison of acoustic characteristics.
    Smeds K; Leijon A
    Scand Audiol; 2001; 30(4):213-22. PubMed ID: 11845990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Use of a loudness model for hearing-aid fitting. I. Linear hearing aids.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    Br J Audiol; 1998 Oct; 32(5):317-35. PubMed ID: 9845030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 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. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users?
    Smeds K
    Ear Hear; 2004 Apr; 25(2):159-72. PubMed ID: 15064661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Transitioning hearing aid users with severe and profound loss to a new gain/frequency response: benefit, perception, and acceptance.
    Convery E; Keidser G
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Mar; 22(3):168-80. PubMed ID: 21545769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An examination of the practicality of the simplex procedure.
    Preminger JE; Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Walters D; Levitt H
    Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):177-93. PubMed ID: 10890726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
    Br J Audiol; 1999 Aug; 33(4):241-58. PubMed ID: 10509859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.