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 *

329 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9562536)

  • 1. Accuracy of predicted ear canal speech levels using the VIOLA input/output-based fitting strategy.
    Cox RM; Flamme GA
    Ear Hear; 1998 Apr; 19(2):139-48. PubMed ID: 9562536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Effects of Manufacturer's Prefit and Real-Ear Fitting on the Predicted Speech Perception of Children with Severe to Profound Hearing Loss.
    Quar TK; Umat C; Chew YY
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 May; 30(5):346-356. PubMed ID: 30461383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures.
    Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 1996 Apr; 17(2):124-32. PubMed ID: 8698159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of earmold fit on predicted real ear SPL using a real ear to coupler difference procedure.
    Hoover BM; Stelmachowicz PG; Lewis DE
    Ear Hear; 2000 Aug; 21(4):310-7. PubMed ID: 10981607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Difference between the default telecoil (t-coil) and programmed microphone frequency response in behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids.
    Putterman DB; Valente M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):366-78. PubMed ID: 22533979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Using the Real-Ear-to-Coupler Difference within the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: Protocols for Applying and Predicting Earmold RECDs.
    Moodie S; Pietrobon J; Rall E; Lindley G; Eiten L; Gordey D; Davidson L; Moodie KS; Bagatto M; Haluschak MM; Folkeard P; Scollie S
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Mar; 27(3):264-275. PubMed ID: 26967366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in Hearing Aids Fit to Children with Severe or Profound Hearing Loss: Goodness of Fit-to-Targets, Impacts on Predicted Loudness and Speech Intelligibility.
    Ching TY; Quar TK; Johnson EE; Newall P; Sharma M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):260-74. PubMed ID: 25751694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of an in-situ output probe-microphone method for hearing aid fitting verification.
    Cox RM; Alexander GC
    Ear Hear; 1990 Feb; 11(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 2307301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
    Br J Audiol; 1999 Aug; 33(4):241-58. PubMed ID: 10509859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy and reliability of a real-ear-to-coupler difference measurement procedure implemented within a behind-the-ear hearing aid.
    Scollie S; Bagatto M; Moodie S; Crukley J
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Oct; 22(9):612-622. PubMed ID: 22192606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A "Goldilocks" Approach to Hearing Aid Self-Fitting: Ear-Canal Output and Speech Intelligibility Index.
    Mackersie C; Boothroyd A; Lithgow A
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):107-115. PubMed ID: 29894379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Test-retest reliability of probe-microphone verification in children fitted with open and closed hearing aid tips.
    Kim H; Ricketts TA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013; 24(7):635-42. PubMed ID: 24047950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. IV. Fitting hearing aids with multi-channel compression so as to restore 'normal' loudness for speech at different levels.
    Moore BC
    Br J Audiol; 2000 Jun; 34(3):165-77. PubMed ID: 10905450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of an 'intuitive' NHS hearing aid prescription method with DSL 4.1 targets for amplification.
    Parsons JO; Clark CR
    Int J Audiol; 2002 Sep; 41(6):357-62. PubMed ID: 12353608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids.
    Stelmachowicz PG; Dalzell S; Peterson D; Kopun J; Lewis DL; Hoover BE
    Ear Hear; 1998 Apr; 19(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 9562535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: II. Hearing aids with multi-channel compression.
    Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Stone MA; Glasberg BR
    Br J Audiol; 1999 Jun; 33(3):157-70. PubMed ID: 10439142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Manufacturer predicted and measured REAR values in adult hearing aid fitting: accuracy and clinical usefulness.
    Aarts NL; Caffee CS
    Int J Audiol; 2005 May; 44(5):293-301. PubMed ID: 16028792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Tolerable hearing aid delays. I. Estimation of limits imposed by the auditory path alone using simulated hearing losses.
    Stone MA; Moore BC
    Ear Hear; 1999 Jun; 20(3):182-92. PubMed ID: 10386846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Value of in situ measurement for evaluating effective hearing aid amplification at high sound pressure levels].
    Brügel FJ; Schorn K
    Laryngorhinootologie; 1993 Jun; 72(6):301-5. PubMed ID: 8333886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.