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 *

85 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 922229)

  • 1. Radio frequency clipping in hearing aids.
    Bradley PJ
    Br J Audiol; 1977 Aug; 11(3):69-74. PubMed ID: 922229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Multichannel compression hearing aids: experiments and consideration on clinical applicability.
    Barfod J
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1978; (6):315-40. PubMed ID: 292146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Frequency responses of hearing aids and their effects on the speech perception of hearing-impaired subjects.
    Pascoe DP
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 1975; 84(5 pt 2 Suppl 23):1-40. PubMed ID: 1180471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Ranking hearing aid input-output functions for understanding low-, conversational-, and high-level speech in multitalker babble.
    Chung K; Killion MC; Christensen LA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Apr; 50(2):304-22. PubMed ID: 17463231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of speech discrimination in noise and directional hearing with 2 different sound processors of a bone-anchored hearing system in adults with unilateral severe or profound sensorineural hearing loss.
    Wesarg T; Aschendorff A; Laszig R; Beck R; Schild C; Hassepass F; Kroeger S; Hocke T; Arndt S
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Aug; 34(6):1064-70. PubMed ID: 23856626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Variable-speech-rate audiometry for hearing aid evaluation.
    Hosoi H; Tsuta Y; Nishida T; Murata K; Ohta F; Mekata T; Kato Y
    Auris Nasus Larynx; 1999 Jan; 26(1):17-27. PubMed ID: 10077252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Speech recognition with dynamic range reduction: (1) deaf and normal subjects in laboratory conditions.
    Drysdale AE; Gregory RL
    Br J Audiol; 1978 Aug; 12(3):87-98. PubMed ID: 698442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of the effect on consonant discrimination of combining low- and high-frequency passbands in normal, congenital, and adventitious hearing-impaired subjects.
    Franklin B
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(3):168-76. PubMed ID: 528295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech: results for listeners with hearing loss.
    Kozma-Spytek L; Kates JM; Revoile SG
    J Speech Hear Res; 1996 Dec; 39(6):1115-23. PubMed ID: 8959597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Nose and speech discrimination with specific hearing aid systems (author's transl)].
    Bernath O; Richartz W; Bormann B
    HNO; 1978 Feb; 26(2):73-6. PubMed ID: 632137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Methods for the evaluation of hearing aids.
    Levitt H
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1978; (6):199-240. PubMed ID: 292143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of high pass filtering on the intelligibility of amplitude-compressed speech.
    Vargo SW
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(3):163-7. PubMed ID: 528294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Application of frequency importance functions to directivity for prediction of benefit in uniform fields.
    Ricketts TA; Henry PP; Hornsby BW
    Ear Hear; 2005 Oct; 26(5):473-86. PubMed ID: 16230897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Influence of hearing aids on monosyllabic test score and subjective everyday hearing].
    Thümmler R; Liebscher T; Hoppe U
    HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):595-600. PubMed ID: 27126291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Preference judgments of artificial processed and hearing-aid transduced speech.
    Versfeld NJ; Festen JM; Houtgast T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Sep; 106(3 Pt 1):1566-78. PubMed ID: 10489712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of a programmable 3-channel compression hearing system with single-channel AGC instruments.
    Kiessling J; Steffens T
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():67-74. PubMed ID: 8153566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss and personal hearing AIDS on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing.
    Korczak PA; Kurtzberg D; Stapells DR
    Ear Hear; 2005 Apr; 26(2):165-85. PubMed ID: 15809543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Protocol for evaluation of the effect of hearing aid electroacoustic parameters on perception of amplified speech.
    Lawrence DW; Blackledge VO
    J Am Audiol Soc; 1977; 2(6):197-201. PubMed ID: 893188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.