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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

189 related items for PubMed ID: 21599615

  • 1. Long-term effects of non-linear frequency compression for children with moderate hearing loss.
    Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E, Nyffeler M, Boretzki M, Caraway T, Hudson M.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jun; 50(6):396-404. PubMed ID: 21599615
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Clinical evaluation of a new hearing aid anti-cardioid directivity pattern.
    Mueller HG, Weber J, Bellanova M.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Apr; 50(4):249-54. PubMed ID: 21271803
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived music quality.
    Arehart KH, Kates JM, Anderson MC.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Mar; 50(3):177-90. PubMed ID: 21319935
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Speech recognition in noise using bilateral open-fit hearing aids: the limited benefit of directional microphones and noise reduction.
    Magnusson L, Claesson A, Persson M, Tengstrand T.
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jan; 52(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 22928919
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Benefit from non-linear frequency compression hearing aids in a clinical setting: the effects of duration of experience and severity of high-frequency hearing loss.
    Hopkins K, Khanom M, Dickinson AM, Munro KJ.
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Apr; 53(4):219-28. PubMed ID: 24617592
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Evaluation of real-world preferences and performance of hearing aids fitted according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures in children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss.
    Quar TK, Ching TY, Newall P, Sharma M.
    Int J Audiol; 2013 May; 52(5):322-32. PubMed ID: 23570290
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Speech understanding in noise with an eyeglass hearing aid: asymmetric fitting and the head shadow benefit of anterior microphones.
    Mens LH.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 21047292
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Severe difficulties with word recognition in noise after platinum chemotherapy in childhood, and improvements with open-fitting hearing-aids.
    Einarsson EJ, Petersen H, Wiebe T, Fransson PA, Magnusson M, Moëll C.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Oct; 50(10):642-51. PubMed ID: 21812630
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Effect of spatial separation, extended bandwidth, and compression speed on intelligibility in a competing-speech task.
    Moore BC, Füllgrabe C, Stone MA.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Jul; 128(1):360-71. PubMed ID: 20649230
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users.
    Ng EH, Rudner M, Lunner T, Pedersen MS, Rönnberg J.
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jul; 52(7):433-41. PubMed ID: 23550584
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners' localization and spatial speech recognition abilities?
    Neher T, Laugesen S, Jensen NS, Kragelund L.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1542-58. PubMed ID: 21895093
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Phonemic restoration by hearing-impaired listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss.
    Başkent D, Eiler CL, Edwards B.
    Hear Res; 2010 Feb; 260(1-2):54-62. PubMed ID: 19922784
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Speech-reception threshold in noise for hearing-impaired listeners in conditions with a varying amplitude-frequency response.
    van Dijkhuizen JN, Festen JM, Plomp R.
    Acta Otolaryngol Suppl; 1990 Feb; 469():202-6. PubMed ID: 2356728
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: steady-state noise.
    Smits C, Festen JM.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):2987-98. PubMed ID: 22087927
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. The Danish hearing in noise test.
    Nielsen JB, Dau T.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Mar; 50(3):202-8. PubMed ID: 21319937
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Comparison of the fine structure processing (FSP) strategy and the CIS strategy used in the MED-EL cochlear implant system: speech intelligibility and music sound quality.
    Magnusson L.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Apr; 50(4):279-87. PubMed ID: 21190508
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests.
    Francart T, van Wieringen A, Wouters J.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):2-13. PubMed ID: 21091261
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Dynamic relation between working memory capacity and speech recognition in noise during the first 6 months of hearing aid use.
    Ng EH, Classon E, Larsby B, Arlinger S, Lunner T, Rudner M, Rönnberg J.
    Trends Hear; 2014 Nov 23; 18():. PubMed ID: 25421088
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Sound source localization using hearing aids with microphones placed behind-the-ear, in-the-canal, and in-the-pinna.
    Van den Bogaert T, Carette E, Wouters J.
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Mar 23; 50(3):164-76. PubMed ID: 21208034
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.