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 *

186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19206805)

  • 1. Listening to every other word: examining the strength of linkage variables in forming streams of speech.
    Kidd G; Best V; Mason CR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Dec; 124(6):3793-802. PubMed ID: 19206805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Word Identification With Temporally Interleaved Competing Sounds by Younger and Older Adult Listeners.
    Helfer KS; Poissant SF; Merchant GR
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(3):603-614. PubMed ID: 31567564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The pupil response reveals increased listening effort when it is difficult to focus attention.
    Koelewijn T; de Kluiver H; Shinn-Cunningham BG; Zekveld AA; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2015 May; 323():81-90. PubMed ID: 25732724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Strength of target source segregation cues affects the outcome of speech-on-speech masking experiments.
    Roverud E; Villard S; Kidd G
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2023 May; 153(5):2780. PubMed ID: 37140176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
    Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
    Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test.
    Wendt D; Koelewijn T; Książek P; Kramer SE; Lunner T
    Hear Res; 2018 Nov; 369():67-78. PubMed ID: 29858121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Enhancing listener strategies using a payoff matrix in speech-on-speech masking experiments.
    Thompson ER; Iyer N; Simpson BD; Wakefield GH; Kieras DE; Brungart DS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Sep; 138(3):1297-304. PubMed ID: 26428768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Rönnberg J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep; 134(3):2225-34. PubMed ID: 23967952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test.
    Cameron S; Dillon H; Newall P
    Ear Hear; 2006 Feb; 27(1):30-42. PubMed ID: 16446563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Visually guided auditory attention in a dynamic "cocktail-party" speech perception task: ERP evidence for age-related differences.
    Getzmann S; Wascher E
    Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():98-108. PubMed ID: 27825858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Target identification using relative level in multi-talker listening.
    Kitterick PT; Clarke E; O'Shea C; Seymour J; Summerfield AQ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 May; 133(5):2899-909. PubMed ID: 23654395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. In a Concurrent Memory and Auditory Perception Task, the Pupil Dilation Response Is More Sensitive to Memory Load Than to Auditory Stimulus Characteristics.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Rönnberg J; Rudner M
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(2):272-286. PubMed ID: 29923867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners.
    Burk MH; Humes LE; Amos NE; Strauser LE
    Ear Hear; 2006 Jun; 27(3):263-78. PubMed ID: 16672795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Temporally pre-presented lipreading cues release speech from informational masking.
    Wu C; Cao S; Wu X; Li L
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):EL281-5. PubMed ID: 23556692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response.
    Ohlenforst B; Wendt D; Kramer SE; Naylor G; Zekveld AA; Lunner T
    Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 365():90-99. PubMed ID: 29779607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Extrinsic Cognitive Load Impairs Spoken Word Recognition in High- and Low-Predictability Sentences.
    Hunter CR; Pisoni DB
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(2):378-389. PubMed ID: 28945658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Tuning in the spatial dimension: evidence from a masked speech identification task.
    Marrone N; Mason CR; Kidd G
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Aug; 124(2):1146-58. PubMed ID: 18681603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Speech predictability can hinder communication in difficult listening conditions.
    Marrufo-Pérez MI; Eustaquio-Martín A; Lopez-Poveda EA
    Cognition; 2019 Nov; 192():103992. PubMed ID: 31254890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 21921797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Festen JM; van Beek JH; Rönnberg J
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(6):e16-25. PubMed ID: 21826004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.