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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9710336)

  • 21. Duration, compression, and the aided loudness discomfort level.
    Fortune T; Scheller T
    Ear Hear; 2000 Aug; 21(4):329-41. PubMed ID: 10981609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. The design and evaluation of a hearing aid with trainable amplification parameters.
    Zakis JA; Dillon H; McDermott HJ
    Ear Hear; 2007 Dec; 28(6):812-30. PubMed ID: 17982368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Clinical evaluation of a full-digital in-the-ear hearing instrument.
    Boymans M; Dreschler WA; Schoneveld P; Verschuure H
    Audiology; 1999; 38(2):99-108. PubMed ID: 10206519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users.
    Marriage J; Moore BC; Alcántara JI
    Int J Audiol; 2004 Apr; 43(4):198-210. PubMed ID: 15250124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The preferred number of channels (one, two, or four) in NAL-NL1 prescribed wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) devices.
    Keidser G; Grant F
    Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):516-27. PubMed ID: 11770673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Differences in performance between Oticon MultiFocus Compact and ReSound BT2-E hearing aids.
    Valente M; Sammeth CA; Potts LG; Wynne MK; Wagner-Escobar M; Coughlin M
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1997 Aug; 8(4):280-93. PubMed ID: 9272751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
    James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
    Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids.
    Moore BC; Glasberg BR
    Audiology; 1986; 25(4-5):210-26. PubMed ID: 3566630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effects of fast-acting high-frequency compression on the intelligibility of speech in steady and fluctuating background sounds.
    Stone MA; Moore BC; Wojtczak M; Gudgin E
    Br J Audiol; 1997 Aug; 31(4):257-73. PubMed ID: 9307821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Real-time multiband dynamic compression and noise reduction for binaural hearing aids.
    Kollmeier B; Peissig J; Hohmann V
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1993; 30(1):82-94. PubMed ID: 8263832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Clinical evaluation of a portable digital hearing aid with narrow-band loudness compensation.
    Hidaka H; Kawase T; Takahashi S; Suzuki Y; Ozawa K; Sakamoto S; Sasaki N; Hirano K; Ueda N; Sone T; Takasaka T
    Scand Audiol; 1998; 27(4):225-36. PubMed ID: 9832405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. A digital processing strategy to optimize hearing aid outputs directly.
    Blamey PJ; Martin LF; Fiket HJ
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2004; 15(10):716-28. PubMed ID: 15646669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Performance benefits for adults using a cochlear implant with adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a comparative study.
    Müller-Deile J; Kiefer J; Wyss J; Nicolai J; Battmer R
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2008 Mar; 9(1):8-26. PubMed ID: 18300224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Restoring Perceived Loudness for Listeners With Hearing Loss.
    Oetting D; Hohmann V; Appell JE; Kollmeier B; Ewert SD
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(4):664-678. PubMed ID: 29210810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. An examination of the practicality of the simplex procedure.
    Preminger JE; Neuman AC; Bakke MH; Walters D; Levitt H
    Ear Hear; 2000 Jun; 21(3):177-93. PubMed ID: 10890726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.