• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 319
  • 88
  • 77
  • 29
  • 14
  • 14
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • Tagged with
  • 691
  • 94
  • 79
  • 64
  • 56
  • 54
  • 52
  • 46
  • 45
  • 44
  • 44
  • 44
  • 39
  • 38
  • 37
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
191

A Computational Model to Predict Safety Limits for Aided Music Listening

Boley, J., Johnson, Earl E. 01 June 2018 (has links)
No description available.
192

Practitioners Give High Marks to Open-canal Mini-BTEs on User Benefit

Johnson, Earl E. 01 March 2008 (has links)
What do hip-huggers, HEMI engines, and behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids have in common? Not a whole lot except that all three were trendy in the 1960s and 1970s, then fell into decline, and now, in the new millennium, are selling like those proverbial hotcakes! They have also all come back in somewhat different forms. Chrysler's new HEMI engine, introduced in 2002, is a little smaller than that of yesteryear. The old hip-huggers have been reincarnated as “low-rise jeans.” And the BTE's return to dominance of the hearing aid market has been fueled by the appearance of smaller instruments with open-canal (OC) fittings, beginning in 2003 with the GN ReSound Air®. Today, every manufacturer offers smaller BTEs, mostly fitted with an open canal, and often categorized under new names, such as post-auricular-canal, over-the-ear, and mini- and micro-BTEs. This new breed of products is also showing up in an amazing range of shapes and colors, as that old industry dream of stylish hearing aids is finally coming true. The Hearing Industries Association (HIA), the main source of U.S. market sales data, recently reported that 51.45% of all hearing aids sold in 2007 were of some BTE style. However, it remains uncertain how much of the boom in BTE sales has resulted from smaller open-fit BTE hearing aids, herein referred to as OC mini-BTEs. To find out the extent of the OC mini-BTE boom—and also what dispensers and their patients think of this product type—the 2008 Hearing Journal/AudiologyOnline (HJ/AO) survey included a special section of 10 questions for audiologists, hearing instrument specialists, and other hearing professionals about their experiences with and opinions on these devices. The survey also included questions on many other topics, which will be reported on next month. But this Cover Story focuses on what our survey learned about OC mini-BTEs—their popularity and their perceived benefits and drawbacks. First though, here's a quick look at how the survey was conducted and who took part.
193

Despite Having More Advanced Features, Hearing Aids Hold Line on Retail Price

Johnson, Earl E. 01 January 2008 (has links)
Despite the growing popularity of state-of-the-art open-canal mini-BTEs, which were discussed in last month's Cover Story, and the increasing prevalence of advanced hearing aid features, the annual Hearing Journal/Audiology Onlinedispenser survey conducted in January found only small, inflation-appropriate increases in the average retail price of hearing aids over the past 3 years. Specifically, the average price of the hearing aids that participating dispensers reported selling in 2007 was $1986, only marginally higher than the average prices of $1912 and $1868 in 2006 and 2005, respectively. Retail pricing is just one of many topics addressed in this, the second of two articles reporting the results of the 2008 dispenser survey. The March article focused on a special section of the survey exploring the experiences and attitudes of dispensing audiologists and hearing instrument specialists related to open-canal mini-BTE hearing aids. This article reports key findings from the rest of the Internet survey, which drew valid responses from 418 hearing healthcare professionals, including 291 audiologists and 120 traditional dispensers.
194

How Do Hearing Aid Dispensers Pick their Buying Preferences

Johnson, Earl E. 01 March 2010 (has links)
Let's talk beer for a moment. Beginning back in the mid-90s, at the Sandlot microbrewery located within Coors Field in Downtown Denver, a fairly tasty Belgian-style witbier called Bellyslide (a baseball term) was available in small batches. It was a favorite of a few, but ignored by most, and even scorned by some (it was unfiltered). But then, about 6 years ago, Coors gave it a new name— Blue Moon—started producing it in bulk, and rolled it out across the U.S. It became the top-performing beer brand in 2007, and today Blue Moon is closing in on making the top ten list of all domestic beers sold. Why is it so popular? The taste of course, right? Maybe. How about the pretty blue label? Or the fact that it's usually served with an orange slice? Or that Coors disguises it as a “craft beer”? Or, maybe it's just more fun to say “Blue Moon” than “Bud.” As with beer, people also make brand purchase decisions about hearing aids. But there's a difference. In the case of hearing aids, the consumer usually does not select the brand. His or her dispenser does. It's not uncommon to sit down with four different people in private practice and discover that each has a different favorite hearing aid brand. And interestingly, all of them say they picked this particular brand because it is the best. But how can all four brands be the best? Or are they all just the same? Only a few audiologists have conducted research on hearing aid brand preferences. One of them is Earl Johnson, AuD, PhD, an audiologist at Mountain Home, TN, Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor at East Tennessee State University. While obtaining his PhD at Vanderbilt University with a focus on hearing aid research, Dr. Johnson also studied consumer behavior at Vanderbilt's Owen business school—an unusual combination that has led to much of his research. You've probably also noted his recent book chapters and journal publications related to modern hearing aid technology and hearing aid selection. While this is his debut on Page Ten, Earl is not a new contributor to the Journal. For many years he assisted with HJ'sdispenser surveys and contributed articles on these findings. I'm not sure if Earl drinks Blue Moon because of the orange slice, but I'm quite certain he can provide you some interesting insights on why you have a hearing aid brand preference.
195

Dispensing a Hearing Aid Brand: What's Important to Audiologists and Their Individual Decision Choice?

Johnson, Earl E. 01 January 2008 (has links)
Excerpt: How do audiologists decide which manufacturing brand they will use when dispensing hearing aids to patients? Based on ideology and methodology from the field of consumer behavior, this article offers insight into the decision-making processes used by clinical audiologists in today's field of practice. To begin, it is necessary to briefly review recent and relevant trends in this area.
196

Fitting Hearing Aids: A Comparison of Three Pre-fitting Speech Tests

Mueller, H. Gustav, Johnson, Earl E., Weber, Jennifer 01 January 2010 (has links)
Excerpt: As expressed in published guidelines, there are several components to the overall hearing aid fitting process. The primary focus usually surrounds the selection of the hearing aids and their special features, verification of the fitting, and then some type of real-world validation. Another component recommended in all published hearing aid fitting guidelines but often overlooked, is pre-testing.
197

Are Larger Hearing Aid Receivers Really Noisier?

Johnson, Earl E. 05 January 2012 (has links)
Question: I've been fitting a lot of receiver-in-canal (RIC) products, and when I have a patient with good low-frequency hearing, I like to use the smaller gain receiver option because I worry about the larger gain receiver being noisier. Sometimes though, use of the smaller gain receiver makes it difficult to fit prescriptive targets for moderately-severe to severe high frequency hearing loss thresholds. Should I be concerned about larger receivers being noisier?
198

Highly Multiplexed Single Cell in situ Protein Analysis with Cleavable Fluorescent Probes

January 2019 (has links)
abstract: Measurements of different molecular species from single cells have the potential to reveal cell-to-cell variations, which are precluded by population-based measurements. An increasing percentage of researches have been focused on proteins, for its central roles in biological processes. Immunofluorescence (IF) has been a well-established protein analysis platform. To gain comprehensive insights into cell biology and diagnostic pathology, a crucial direction would be to increase the multiplexity of current single cell protein analysis technologies. An azide-based chemical cleavable linker has been introduced to design and synthesis novel fluorescent probes. These probes allow cyclic immunofluorescence staining which leads to the feasibility of highly multiplexed single cell in situ protein profiling. These highly multiplexed imaging-based platforms have the potential to quantify more than 100 protein targets in cultured cells and more than 50 protein targets in single cells in tissues. This approach has been successfully applied in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) brain tissues. Multiplexed protein expression level results reveal neuronal heterogeneity in the human hippocampus. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Chemistry 2019
199

Les galaxies de faible masse vues par MUSE et l'amplification gravitationnelle / Low mass galaxies seen by MUSE and gravitational lensing

Martinez, Johany 12 June 2019 (has links)
La formation et l'évolution des galaxies reste à ce jour un des mystères de l'Univers observable. Dans le but d'améliorer notre connaissance dans ce domaine, la recherche a utilisé les différentes campagnes d'observation pour caractériser les relations d'échelle des propriétés physiques dans le but de mieux contraindre et comprendre les populations de galaxies aux différentes étapes de leur vie au cours de l'histoire de l'Univers. Depuis les dernières décennies, les études tentent d'étendre ces relations d'échelles dans l'espace des paramètres. C'est dans ce mouvement là que s'inscrit ce projet de thèse. La photométrie des galaxies à haut redshift contient la signature des propriétés physiques comme la masse stellaire, le taux de formation stellaire et l'extinction. Dans cette étude, j’ai réalisé une analyse SED des galaxies amplifiées à z>3 en utilisant les images profondes de Hubble, Bande-K et IRAC des Fontier Fields. Nous avons réalisé la décontamination de ces images en ajustant automatiquement les galaxies avec GALFIT, en utilisant un script Python développé qui prend en compte les niveaux de contamination relatif de toutes les galaxies du champ. Nous avons ensuite ajusté les SEDs décontaminées en utilisant des synthèses de populations stellaires.J’ai appliqué cette méthode pour obtenir les SFR, les SM et les tailles d'un échantillon de 63 galaxies à z>3 détectées dans les champs de A2744 et MACS0416, spectroscopiquement confirmées par MUSE. L'amplification très forte de ces amas nous a permis de collecter un échantillon robuste de galaxies de faibles masses/faibles luminosité, permettant de contraindre les relations d'échelles dans des zones encore in-explorées / Galaxy formation and evolution is one of the most challenging mysteries in the observable Universe. In order to improve our knowledge in this field, the research make use of different observation programs to characterize scaling relations of physical properties, to better constrain and understand galaxy population at different stages of their lives throughout the history of the Universe. Since the past decades, studies are trying to extend those scaling relations in the parameter space. It is in this movement that this thesis project fits. The Spectral Energy Distribution(SED) of high redshift galaxies contains the signature of physical properties such as stellar mass, SFR and extinction. In this work, we perform a SED analysis of magnified galaxies at z>3 using deep Hubble, VLT and Spitzer/IRAC images of the Frontier Fields galaxy clusters. Due to the size of the Kband PSF and specially IRAC PSF and the high density of bright cluster members, it is crucial to deblend Kband and IRAC images to get a reliable SED. We do this by automatically fitting the contaminating galaxies with GALFIT, using a custom Python script which accounts for the relative levels of contamination from each cluster member. We model the decontaminated SED using stellar population models. We apply this method to derive SFR, masses and sizes of a sample of 63 galaxies at z>3 detected in the A2744 and MACS0416 fields, spectroscopically confirmed with MUSE. The very strong amplification of these clusters allow us to collect a robust sample of low-mass galaxies (108 M?), probing the low-luminosity part of scaling relations between stellar mass & size and stellar mass & stellar formation rate
200

The development of an efficient method of mitochondrial DNA analysis

Tan, Angela Y. C. January 2003 (has links)
Abstract not available

Page generated in 0.0476 seconds