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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9193734)

  • 1. Audio-visual perception of compressed speech by profoundly hearing-impaired subjects.
    Drullman R; Smoorenburg GF
    Audiology; 1997; 36(3):165-77. PubMed ID: 9193734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Understanding compression: modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids.
    Kates JM
    Int J Audiol; 2010 Jun; 49(6):395-409. PubMed ID: 20225931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Multichannel compression processing for profound deafness.
    Villchur E
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):135-48. PubMed ID: 3430373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Speech pattern hearing aids for the profoundly hearing impaired: speech perception and auditory abilities.
    Faulkner A; Ball V; Rosen S; Moore BC; Fourcin A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1992 Apr; 91(4 Pt 1):2136-55. PubMed ID: 1597605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Speechreading supplemented with auditorily presented speech elements in the profoundly hearing impaired.
    Bosman AJ; Smoorenburg GF
    Audiology; 1997; 36(1):29-45. PubMed ID: 9063559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Perception of sentences, words, and speech features by profoundly hearing-impaired children using a multichannel electrotactile speech processor.
    Cowan RS; Blamey PJ; Galvin KL; Sarant JZ; Alcántara JI; Clark GM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1990 Sep; 88(3):1374-84. PubMed ID: 2146297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of frequency-selective attenuation on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in conditions of low-frequency noise.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Festen JM; Plomp R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1991 Aug; 90(2 Pt 1):885-94. PubMed ID: 1939893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. New developments in speech pattern element hearing aids for the profoundly deaf.
    Faulkner A; Walliker JR; Howard IS; Ball V; Fourcin AJ
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():124-35. PubMed ID: 8153558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Speech discrimination with an 8-channel compression hearing aid and conventional aids in background of speech-band noise.
    Yund EW; Simon HJ; Efron R
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):161-80. PubMed ID: 3430375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of three amplification strategies on speech perception by children with severe and profound hearing loss.
    Marriage JE; Moore BC; Stone MA; Baer T
    Ear Hear; 2005 Feb; 26(1):35-47. PubMed ID: 15692303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of Threshold Adjustment on Speech Perception in Nucleus Cochlear Implant Recipients.
    Busby PA; Arora K
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):303-11. PubMed ID: 26671316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Using multichannel wide-dynamic range compression in severely hearing-impaired listeners: effects on speech recognition and quality.
    Souza PE; Jenstad LM; Folino R
    Ear Hear; 2005 Apr; 26(2):120-31. PubMed ID: 15809540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: Part I--laboratory tests.
    Wu YH; Bentler RA
    Ear Hear; 2010 Feb; 31(1):22-34. PubMed ID: 19864954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Coherence and the speech intelligibility index.
    Kates JM; Arehart KH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2005 Apr; 117(4 Pt 1):2224-37. PubMed ID: 15898663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Electroacoustic evaluation of frequency-modulated receivers interfaced with personal hearing aids.
    Schafer EC; Thibodeau LM; Whalen HS; Overson GJ
    Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch; 2007 Oct; 38(4):315-26. PubMed ID: 17890512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Improvement in speech intelligibility in noise employing an adaptive filter with normal and hearing-impaired subjects.
    Brey RH; Robinette MS; Chabries DM; Christiansen RW
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1987; 24(4):75-86. PubMed ID: 3430392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Compression-dependent differences in hearing aid gain between speech and nonspeech input signals.
    Henning RW; Bentler R
    Ear Hear; 2005 Aug; 26(4):409-22. PubMed ID: 16079635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Speech production changes with the use of a multichannel cochlear implant in a postlingually hearing impaired adult.
    Cummings S; Groenewald E; Hugo R; Müller L; van der Linde M
    S Afr J Commun Disord; 1994; 41():3-13. PubMed ID: 8602540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.