527 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19380604)
1. Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction.
Sarampalis A; Kalluri S; Edwards B; Hafter E
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2009 Oct; 52(5):1230-40. PubMed ID: 19380604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The influence of age, hearing, and working memory on the speech comprehension benefit derived from an automatic speech recognition system.
Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Kessens JM; Vlaming MS; Houtgast T
Ear Hear; 2009 Apr; 30(2):262-72. PubMed ID: 19194286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response.
Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):498-510. PubMed ID: 21233711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands.
Hornsby BW
Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):523-34. PubMed ID: 23426091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners.
Rosengard PS; Payton KL; Braida LD
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2005 Jun; 48(3):702-14. PubMed ID: 16197282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Do hearing loss and cognitive function modulate benefit from different binaural noise-reduction settings?
Neher T; Grimm G; Hohmann V; Kollmeier B
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(3):e52-62. PubMed ID: 24351610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort.
Picou EM; Ricketts TA; Hornsby BW
Ear Hear; 2013 Sep; 34(5):e52-64. PubMed ID: 23416751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effects of transient noise reduction algorithms on speech intelligibility and ratings of hearing aid users.
DiGiovanni JJ; Davlin EA; Nagaraj NK
Am J Audiol; 2011 Dec; 20(2):140-50. PubMed ID: 21940982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Understanding speech in noise after correction of congenital unilateral aural atresia: effects of age in the emergence of binaural squelch but not in use of head-shadow.
Gray L; Kesser B; Cole E
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2009 Sep; 73(9):1281-7. PubMed ID: 19581007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort.
Houben R; van Doorn-Bierman M; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2013 Nov; 52(11):753-61. PubMed ID: 24053226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of changing the secondary task in dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort.
Picou EM; Ricketts TA
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):611-22. PubMed ID: 24992491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Speech reception thresholds in noise and self-reported hearing disability in a general adult population.
Smits C; Kramer SE; Houtgast T
Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):538-49. PubMed ID: 16957503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Binaural noise-reduction hearing aid scheme with real-time processing in the frequency domain.
Kollmeier B; Peissig J; Hohmann V
Scand Audiol Suppl; 1993; 38():28-38. PubMed ID: 8153562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Using genetic algorithms with subjective input from human subjects: implications for fitting hearing aids and cochlear implants.
Başkent D; Eiler CL; Edwards B
Ear Hear; 2007 Jun; 28(3):370-80. PubMed ID: 17485986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of performance on the hearing in noise test using directional microphones and digital noise reduction algorithms.
Nordrum S; Erler S; Garstecki D; Dhar S
Am J Audiol; 2006 Jun; 15(1):81-91. PubMed ID: 16803795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Perceptual consequences of different signal changes due to binaural noise reduction: do hearing loss and working memory capacity play a role?
Neher T; Grimm G; Hohmann V
Ear Hear; 2014; 35(5):e213-27. PubMed ID: 25010636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise.
Anderson Gosselin P; Gagné JP
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2011 Jun; 54(3):944-58. PubMed ID: 21060138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
