F0 discrimination and concurrent vowel identification by hearing‐impaired listeners.

1996 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 2601-2603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Van Summers ◽  
Marjorie R. Leek
1985 ◽  
Vol 78 (S1) ◽  
pp. S81-S81
Author(s):  
M. R. Leek ◽  
M. F. Dorman ◽  
Q. Summerfield

1992 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 1228-1246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nábělek ◽  
Zbigniew Czyzewski ◽  
Lata A. Krishnan

2013 ◽  
Vol 133 (3) ◽  
pp. 1598-1606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olaf Strelcyk ◽  
Ning Li ◽  
Joyce Rodriguez ◽  
Sridhar Kalluri ◽  
Brent Edwards

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjorie R. Leek ◽  
Michael F. Dorman ◽  
Quentin Summerfield

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 233121651880087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Borys Kowalewski ◽  
Johannes Zaar ◽  
Michal Fereczkowski ◽  
Ewen N. MacDonald ◽  
Olaf Strelcyk ◽  
...  

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 1586-1597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne J. Van Tasell ◽  
David A. Fabry ◽  
Linda M. Thibodeau

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (S1) ◽  
pp. S77-S77
Author(s):  
Dianne J. Van Tasell ◽  
David A. Fabry ◽  
Linda M. Thibodeau

1978 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Nodar

The teachers of 2231 elementary school children were asked to identify those with known or suspected hearing problems. Following screening, the data were compared. Teachers identified 5% of the children as hearing-impaired, while screening identified only 3%. There was agreement between the two procedures on 1%. Subsequent to the teacher interviews, rescreening and tympanometry were conducted. These procedures indicated that teacher screening and tympanometry were in agreement on 2% of the total sample or 50% of the hearing-loss group. It was concluded that teachers could supplement audiometry, particularly when otoscopy and typanometry are not available.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document