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 *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12812278)

  • 1. Gaze behavior in audiovisual speech perception: the influence of ocular fixations on the McGurk effect.
    Paré M; Richler RC; ten Hove M; Munhall KG
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 May; 65(4):553-67. PubMed ID: 12812278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Gaze patterns and audiovisual speech enhancement.
    Yi A; Wong W; Eizenman M
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Apr; 56(2):471-80. PubMed ID: 23275394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Causal Inference Model Explains Perception of the McGurk Effect and Other Incongruent Audiovisual Speech.
    Magnotti JF; Beauchamp MS
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2017 Feb; 13(2):e1005229. PubMed ID: 28207734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Gaze behaviour in audiovisual speech perception: asymmetrical distribution of face-directed fixations.
    Everdell IT; Marsh HO; Yurick MD; Munhall KG; Paré M
    Perception; 2007; 36(10):1535-45. PubMed ID: 18265836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A link between individual differences in multisensory speech perception and eye movements.
    Gurler D; Doyle N; Walker E; Magnotti J; Beauchamp M
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2015 May; 77(4):1333-41. PubMed ID: 25810157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Audio-visual integration in noise: Influence of auditory and visual stimulus degradation on eye movements and perception of the McGurk effect.
    Stacey JE; Howard CJ; Mitra S; Stacey PC
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Oct; 82(7):3544-3557. PubMed ID: 32533526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of varying talker identity and listening conditions on gaze behavior during audiovisual speech perception.
    Buchan JN; Paré M; Munhall KG
    Brain Res; 2008 Nov; 1242():162-71. PubMed ID: 18621032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Early and late beta-band power reflect audiovisual perception in the McGurk illusion.
    Roa Romero Y; Senkowski D; Keil J
    J Neurophysiol; 2015 Apr; 113(7):2342-50. PubMed ID: 25568160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Word identification and eye fixation locations in visual and visual-plus-auditory presentations of spoken sentences.
    Lansing CR; McConkie GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 May; 65(4):536-52. PubMed ID: 12812277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effect of a concurrent working memory task and temporal offsets on the integration of auditory and visual speech information.
    Buchan JN; Munhall KG
    Seeing Perceiving; 2012; 25(1):87-106. PubMed ID: 22353570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Spatial Frequency Requirements and Gaze Strategy in Visual-Only and Audiovisual Speech Perception.
    Wilson AH; Alsius A; Paré M; Munhall KG
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2016 Aug; 59(4):601-15. PubMed ID: 27537379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Word Learning in Deaf Adults Who Use Cochlear Implants: The Role of Talker Variability and Attention to the Mouth.
    Hartman J; Saffran J; Litovsky R
    Ear Hear; 2024 Mar-Apr 01; 45(2):337-350. PubMed ID: 37695563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Integrating speech information across talkers, gender, and sensory modality: female faces and male voices in the McGurk effect.
    Green KP; Kuhl PK; Meltzoff AN; Stevens EB
    Percept Psychophys; 1991 Dec; 50(6):524-36. PubMed ID: 1780200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. "Paying" attention to audiovisual speech: Do incongruent stimuli incur greater costs?
    Brown VA; Strand JF
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2019 Aug; 81(6):1743-1756. PubMed ID: 31197661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Psychobiological Responses Reveal Audiovisual Noise Differentially Challenges Speech Recognition.
    Bidelman GM; Brown B; Mankel K; Nelms Price C
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(2):268-277. PubMed ID: 31283529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. High visual resolution matters in audiovisual speech perception, but only for some.
    Alsius A; Wayne RV; Paré M; Munhall KG
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Jul; 78(5):1472-87. PubMed ID: 27150616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Audiovisual sentence recognition not predicted by susceptibility to the McGurk effect.
    Van Engen KJ; Xie Z; Chandrasekaran B
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Feb; 79(2):396-403. PubMed ID: 27921268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Degradation of labial information modifies audiovisual speech perception in cochlear-implanted children.
    Huyse A; Berthommier F; Leybaert J
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):110-21. PubMed ID: 23059850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Sound location can influence audiovisual speech perception when spatial attention is manipulated.
    Tiippana K; Puharinen H; Möttönen R; Sams M
    Seeing Perceiving; 2011; 24(1):67-90. PubMed ID: 21406157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Processing of changes in visual speech in the human auditory cortex.
    Möttönen R; Krause CM; Tiippana K; Sams M
    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2002 May; 13(3):417-25. PubMed ID: 11919005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.