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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9626859)

  • 21. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds.
    Bacon SP; Opie JM; Montoya DY
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1998 Jun; 41(3):549-63. PubMed ID: 9638921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Evaluation of the sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm in normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners.
    Sang J; Hu H; Zheng C; Li G; Lutman ME; Bleeck S
    Hear Res; 2014 Apr; 310():36-47. PubMed ID: 24495441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise produced by two-channel compression hearing aids.
    Moore BC; Laurence RF; Wright D
    Br J Audiol; 1985 Aug; 19(3):175-87. PubMed ID: 4063555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Predicted and measured speech recognition performance in noise with linear amplification.
    Magnusson L; Karlsson M; Leijon A
    Ear Hear; 2001 Feb; 22(1):46-57. PubMed ID: 11271975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: paired-comparison judgments of quality.
    Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Hellman S; Levitt H
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1994 Sep; 96(3):1471-8. PubMed ID: 7963011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effects of hearing-aid dynamic range compression on spatial perception in a reverberant environment.
    Hassager HG; Wiinberg A; Dau T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2556. PubMed ID: 28464692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Proportional frequency compression of speech for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss.
    Turner CW; Hurtig RR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Aug; 106(2):877-86. PubMed ID: 10462793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The effects of input-output configuration in syllabic compression on speech perception.
    Maré MJ; Dreschler WA; Verschuure H
    J Speech Hear Res; 1992 Jun; 35(3):675-85. PubMed ID: 1608260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effects of high-frequency emphasis and compression time constants on speech intelligibility in noise.
    van Toor T; Verschuure H
    Int J Audiol; 2002 Oct; 41(7):379-94. PubMed ID: 12403606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects.
    Hagerman B
    Int J Audiol; 2002 Sep; 41(6):321-9. PubMed ID: 12353604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effects of the fitting parameters of a two-channel compression system on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in noise.
    Moore BC; Lynch C; Stone MA
    Br J Audiol; 1992 Dec; 26(6):369-79. PubMed ID: 1292821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A comparison of behind-the-ear high-fidelity linear hearing aids and two-channel compression aids, in the laboratory and in everyday life.
    Laurence RF; Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    Br J Audiol; 1983 Feb; 17(1):31-48. PubMed ID: 6860821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Benefits of amplification for speech recognition in background noise.
    Turner CW; Henry BA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Oct; 112(4):1675-80. PubMed ID: 12398472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Acoustical and Perceptual Comparison of Noise Reduction and Compression in Hearing Aids.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2015 Aug; 58(4):1363-76. PubMed ID: 26090648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Do hearing loss and cognitive function modulate benefit from different binaural noise-reduction settings?
    Neher T; Grimm G; Hohmann V; Kollmeier B
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(3):e52-62. PubMed ID: 24351610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Exploring the limits of frequency lowering.
    Souza PE; Arehart KH; Kates JM; Croghan NB; Gehani N
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Oct; 56(5):1349-63. PubMed ID: 23785188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Perceptual Evaluation of Signal-to-Noise-Ratio-Aware Dynamic Range Compression in Hearing Aids.
    Kowalewski B; Dau T; May T
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520930531. PubMed ID: 32573373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids.
    Stone MA; Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Glasberg BR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Dec; 106(6):3603-19. PubMed ID: 10615700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.