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.
2. Audio and visual cues in a two-talker divided attention speech-monitoring task. Brungart DS; Kordik AJ; Simpson BD Hum Factors; 2005; 47(3):562-73. PubMed ID: 16435697 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Audio-visual speech intelligibility benefits with bilateral cochlear implants when talker location varies. van Hoesel RJ J Assoc Res Otolaryngol; 2015 Apr; 16(2):309-15. PubMed ID: 25582430 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
6. Asymmetric performance in the cocktail party effect: implications for the design of spatial audio displays. Boila RS; Nelson WT; Morley RM Hum Factors; 2001; 43(2):208-16. PubMed ID: 11592662 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Spatialized audio improves call sign recognition during multi-aircraft control. Kim S; Miller ME; Rusnock CF; Elshaw JJ Appl Ergon; 2018 Jul; 70():51-58. PubMed ID: 29866325 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. EEG activity evoked in preparation for multi-talker listening by adults and children. Holmes E; Kitterick PT; Summerfield AQ Hear Res; 2016 Jun; 336():83-100. PubMed ID: 27178442 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of Spatial Speech Presentation on Listener Response Strategy for Talker-Identification. Uhrig S; Perkis A; Möller S; Svensson UP; Behne DM Front Neurosci; 2021; 15():730744. PubMed ID: 35153653 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Spatial audio displays improve the detection of target messages in a continuous monitoring task. McAnally KI; Martin RL Hum Factors; 2007 Aug; 49(4):688-95. PubMed ID: 17702220 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The relative impact of generic head-related transfer functions on auditory speech thresholds: implications for the design of three-dimensional audio displays. Arrabito GR; McFadden SM; Crabtree RB Aviat Space Environ Med; 2001 Jul; 72(7):624-31. PubMed ID: 11471905 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Message and talker identification in older adults: effects of task, distinctiveness of the talkers' voices, and meaningfulness of the competing message. Rossi-Katz J; Arehart KH J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2009 Apr; 52(2):435-53. PubMed ID: 19064902 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S). Cameron S; Dillon H Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):196-211. PubMed ID: 17496671 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Infants' listening in multitalker environments: effect of the number of background talkers. Newman RS Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 May; 71(4):822-36. PubMed ID: 19429961 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of a consistent target or masker voice on target speech intelligibility in two- and three-talker mixtures. Samson F; Johnsrude IS J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Mar; 139(3):1037-46. PubMed ID: 27036241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Multitalker speech perception with ideal time-frequency segregation: effects of voice characteristics and number of talkers. Brungart DS; Chang PS; Simpson BD; Wang D J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Jun; 125(6):4006-22. PubMed ID: 19507982 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Speech-in-speech listening on the LiSN-S test by older adults with good audiograms depends on cognition and hearing acuity at high frequencies. Besser J; Festen JM; Goverts ST; Kramer SE; Pichora-Fuller MK Ear Hear; 2015 Jan; 36(1):24-41. PubMed ID: 25207850 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]