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.
77 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8747806)
1. Candidates for multiple frequency response characteristics. Keidser G; Dillon H; Byrne D Ear Hear; 1995 Dec; 16(6):562-74. PubMed ID: 8747806 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Comparison of calculated, measured and self-assessed intelligibility of speech in noise for hearing-aid users. Magnusson L; Karlsson M; Ringdahl A; Israelsson B Scand Audiol; 2001; 30(3):160-71. PubMed ID: 11683454 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Byrne D; Parkinson A; Newall P Ear Hear; 1990 Feb; 11(1):40-9. PubMed ID: 2307302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Speech reception with different bilateral directional processing schemes: Influence of binaural hearing, audiometric asymmetry, and acoustic scenario. Neher T; Wagener KC; Latzel M Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():36-48. PubMed ID: 28783570 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of real-ear insertion gains in Japanese-speaking individuals wearing hearing aids with DSLv5 and NAL-NL2. Furuki S; Sano H; Kurioka T; Ogiwara A; Nakagawa T; Inoue R; Umehara S; Hara Y; Suzuki K; Yamashita T Auris Nasus Larynx; 2021 Feb; 48(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 32747167 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Rader T; Fastl H; Baumann U Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 23263408 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone. Boothroyd A Ear Hear; 2004 Feb; 25(1):22-33. PubMed ID: 14770015 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of real-world preferences and performance of hearing aids fitted according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures in children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss. Quar TK; Ching TY; Newall P; Sharma M Int J Audiol; 2013 May; 52(5):322-32. PubMed ID: 23570290 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Benefit from non-linear frequency compression hearing aids in a clinical setting: the effects of duration of experience and severity of high-frequency hearing loss. Hopkins K; Khanom M; Dickinson AM; Munro KJ Int J Audiol; 2014 Apr; 53(4):219-28. PubMed ID: 24617592 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A model to evaluate and maximize hearing aid performance by integrating the articulation index across listening conditions. Hou Z; Thornton AR Ear Hear; 1994 Feb; 15(1):105-12. PubMed ID: 8194674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Acceptable noise level (ANL) with Danish and non-semantic speech materials in adult hearing-aid users. Olsen SØ; Lantz J; Nielsen LH; Brännström KJ Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):678-88. PubMed ID: 22731922 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The effect of varying the slope of the amplitude-frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences. van Dijkhuizen JN; Anema PC; Plomp R J Acoust Soc Am; 1987 Feb; 81(2):465-9. PubMed ID: 3558964 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dynamic relation between working memory capacity and speech recognition in noise during the first 6 months of hearing aid use. Ng EH; Classon E; Larsby B; Arlinger S; Lunner T; Rudner M; Rönnberg J Trends Hear; 2014 Nov; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. Festen JM; Plomp R J Acoust Soc Am; 1986 Feb; 79(2):465-71. PubMed ID: 3950200 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
18. The effect of varying the amplitude-frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences for hearing-impaired listeners. van Dijkhuizen JN; Festen JM; Plomp R J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Aug; 86(2):621-8. PubMed ID: 2768675 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a simplex procedure in different listening conditions. Kuk FK; Pape NM J Speech Hear Res; 1993 Feb; 36(1):168-77. PubMed ID: 8450656 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects. Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]