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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9188076)

  • 1. Monaural/binaural preferences: effect of hearing aid circuit on speech intelligibility and sound quality.
    Naidoo SV; Hawkins DB
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1997 Jun; 8(3):188-202. PubMed ID: 9188076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of sound quality judgments for monaural and binaural hearing aid processed stimuli.
    Balfour PB; Hawkins DB
    Ear Hear; 1992 Oct; 13(5):331-9. PubMed ID: 1487093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The impact of head angle on monaural and binaural performance with directional and omnidirectional hearing aids.
    Ricketts T
    Ear Hear; 2000 Aug; 21(4):318-28. PubMed ID: 10981608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and output limiting compression.
    Hawkins DB; Naidoo SV
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1993 Jul; 4(4):221-8. PubMed ID: 8369539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Acoustic and perceptual effects of magnifying interaural difference cues in a simulated "binaural" hearing aid.
    de Taillez T; Grimm G; Kollmeier B; Neher T
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S81-S91. PubMed ID: 28395561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Are two ears not better than one?
    McArdle RA; Killion M; Mennite MA; Chisolm TH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 Mar; 23(3):171-81. PubMed ID: 22436115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effect of audiovisual and binaural listening on the acceptable noise level (ANL): establishing an ANL conceptual model.
    Wu YH; Stangl E; Pang C; Zhang X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Feb; 25(2):141-53. PubMed ID: 24828215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
    Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of performance with wide dynamic range compression and linear amplification.
    Kam AC; Wong LL
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1999 Sep; 10(8):445-57. PubMed ID: 10813645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Binaural model-based dynamic-range compression.
    Ernst SMA; Kortlang S; Grimm G; Bisitz T; Kollmeier B; Ewert SD
    Int J Audiol; 2018 Jun; 57(sup3):S31-S42. PubMed ID: 29373937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Quality rating test of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA Clinical Trial.
    Noffsinger D; Haskell GB; Larson VD; Williams DW; Wilson E; Plunkett S; Kenworthy D
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):291-300. PubMed ID: 12195171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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. 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]  

  • 19. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived speech quality.
    Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC
    Ear Hear; 2010 Jun; 31(3):420-36. PubMed ID: 20440116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.