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 *

241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21406157)

  • 41. Binding and unbinding the auditory and visual streams in the McGurk effect.
    Nahorna O; Berthommier F; Schwartz JL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):1061-77. PubMed ID: 22894226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Audio-visual speech perception is special.
    Tuomainen J; Andersen TS; Tiippana K; Sams M
    Cognition; 2005 May; 96(1):B13-22. PubMed ID: 15833302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Recruitment of fusiform face area associated with listening to degraded speech sounds in auditory-visual speech perception: a PET study.
    Kawase T; Yamaguchi K; Ogawa T; Suzuki K; Suzuki M; Itoh M; Kobayashi T; Fujii T
    Neurosci Lett; 2005 Jul; 382(3):254-8. PubMed ID: 15925100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Effects of sound location on visual task performance and electrophysiological measures of distraction.
    Corral MJ; Escera C
    Neuroreport; 2008 Oct; 19(15):1535-9. PubMed ID: 18797312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The effect of amblyopia on visual-auditory speech perception: why mothers may say "Look at me when I'm talking to you".
    Burgmeier R; Desai RU; Farner KC; Tiano B; Lacey R; Volpe NJ; Mets MB
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Jan; 133(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 25211190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Audiovisual matching in speech and nonspeech sounds: a neurodynamical model.
    Loh M; Schmid G; Deco G; Ziegler W
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2010 Feb; 22(2):240-7. PubMed ID: 19302007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Time course of early audiovisual interactions during speech and nonspeech central auditory processing: a magnetoencephalography study.
    Hertrich I; Mathiak K; Lutzenberger W; Ackermann H
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2009 Feb; 21(2):259-74. PubMed ID: 18510440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Audiovisual attention boosts letter-speech sound integration.
    Mittag M; Alho K; Takegata R; Makkonen T; Kujala T
    Psychophysiology; 2013 Oct; 50(10):1034-44. PubMed ID: 23848280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children.
    Blau V; Reithler J; van Atteveldt N; Seitz J; Gerretsen P; Goebel R; Blomert L
    Brain; 2010 Mar; 133(Pt 3):868-79. PubMed ID: 20061325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. The function of consciousness in multisensory integration.
    Palmer TD; Ramsey AK
    Cognition; 2012 Dec; 125(3):353-64. PubMed ID: 22989871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Attention modulates auditory adaptation produced by amplitude modulation.
    Kawashima T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):EL123-7. PubMed ID: 19894786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Deviance detection in congruent audiovisual speech: evidence for implicit integrated audiovisual memory representations.
    Winkler I; Horváth J; Weisz J; Trejo LJ
    Biol Psychol; 2009 Dec; 82(3):281-92. PubMed ID: 19733617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Human brain activity associated with audiovisual perception and attention.
    Degerman A; Rinne T; Pekkola J; Autti T; Jääskeläinen IP; Sams M; Alho K
    Neuroimage; 2007 Feb; 34(4):1683-91. PubMed ID: 17204433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Attention rivalry under irrelevant audiovisual stimulation.
    Feng T; Qiu Y; Zhu Y; Tong S
    Neurosci Lett; 2008 Jun; 438(1):6-9. PubMed ID: 18482799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing speech.
    Francis AL
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Feb; 72(2):501-16. PubMed ID: 20139463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Temporal constraints on the McGurk effect.
    Munhall KG; Gribble P; Sacco L; Ward M
    Percept Psychophys; 1996 Apr; 58(3):351-62. PubMed ID: 8935896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Vision of tongue movements bias auditory speech perception.
    D'Ausilio A; Bartoli E; Maffongelli L; Berry JJ; Fadiga L
    Neuropsychologia; 2014 Oct; 63():85-91. PubMed ID: 25172391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The McGurk effect: An investigation of attentional capacity employing response times.
    Altieri N; Lentz JJ; Townsend JT; Wenger MJ
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Aug; 78(6):1712-27. PubMed ID: 27188651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60. The effect of visual spatial attention on audiovisual speech perception in adults with Asperger syndrome.
    Saalasti S; Tiippana K; Kätsyri J; Sams M
    Exp Brain Res; 2011 Sep; 213(2-3):283-90. PubMed ID: 21660467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.