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 *

357 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8747807)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Selecting different amplification for different listening conditions.
    Keidser G
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1996 Apr; 7(2):92-104. PubMed ID: 8652874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Speech Perception in Noise and Listening Effort of Older Adults With Nonlinear Frequency Compression Hearing Aids.
    Shehorn J; Marrone N; Muller T
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(2):215-225. PubMed ID: 28806193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Guidelines for fitting multiple memory hearing aids.
    Keidser G; Dillon H; Byrne D
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1996 Dec; 7(6):406-18. PubMed ID: 8972442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The preferred number of channels (one, two, or four) in NAL-NL1 prescribed wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) devices.
    Keidser G; Grant F
    Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):516-27. PubMed ID: 11770673
    [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. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Implications of high-frequency cochlear dead regions for fitting hearing aids to adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss.
    Cox RM; Johnson JA; Alexander GC
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):573-87. PubMed ID: 22555183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Benefits of Compression Amplification in Telephone Bluetooth-Assistive Listening Devices for People with Hearing Loss.
    Luo CH; Chang HY; Lo TS; Tai CC
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Mar; 30(3):187-197. PubMed ID: 30461395
    [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. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    Trends Hear; 2014 Oct; 18():. PubMed ID: 25315377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical trials with a programmable hearing aid set for various listening environments.
    Ringdahl A; Eriksson-Mangold M; Israelsson B; Lindkvist A; Mangold S
    Br J Audiol; 1990 Aug; 24(4):235-42. PubMed ID: 2224290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The design and evaluation of a hearing aid with trainable amplification parameters.
    Zakis JA; Dillon H; McDermott HJ
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):812-30. PubMed ID: 17982368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Preferred hearing-aid frequency responses in simulated listening environments.
    Stelmachowicz PG; Lewis DE; Carney E
    J Speech Hear Res; 1994 Jun; 37(3):712-9. PubMed ID: 8084201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Consonant perception with linear and compression amplification.
    Hickson L; Dodd B; Byrne D
    Scand Audiol; 1995; 24(3):175-84. PubMed ID: 8552977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.