238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22894226)
1. 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]
2. Reduced efficiency of audiovisual integration for nonnative speech.
Yi HG; Phelps JE; Smiljanic R; Chandrasekaran B
J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Nov; 134(5):EL387-93. PubMed ID: 24181980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Audiovisual perception of congruent and incongruent Dutch front vowels.
Valkenier B; Duyne JY; Andringa TC; Baskent D
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2012 Dec; 55(6):1788-801. PubMed ID: 22992710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cross-modal interactions during perception of audiovisual speech and nonspeech signals: an fMRI study.
Hertrich I; Dietrich S; Ackermann H
J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 Jan; 23(1):221-37. PubMed ID: 20044895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A possible neurophysiological correlate of audiovisual binding and unbinding in speech perception.
Ganesh AC; Berthommier F; Vilain C; Sato M; Schwartz JL
Front Psychol; 2014; 5():1340. PubMed ID: 25505438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Visual processing affects the neural basis of auditory discrimination.
Kislyuk DS; Möttönen R; Sams M
J Cogn Neurosci; 2008 Dec; 20(12):2175-84. PubMed ID: 18457500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. On the variability of the McGurk effect: audiovisual integration depends on prestimulus brain states.
Keil J; Müller N; Ihssen N; Weisz N
Cereb Cortex; 2012 Jan; 22(1):221-31. PubMed ID: 21625011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. McGurk effect in non-English listeners: few visual effects for Japanese subjects hearing Japanese syllables of high auditory intelligibility.
Sekiyama K; Tohkura Y
J Acoust Soc Am; 1991 Oct; 90(4 Pt 1):1797-805. PubMed ID: 1960275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Audiovisual training is better than auditory-only training for auditory-only speech-in-noise identification.
Lidestam B; Moradi S; Pettersson R; Ricklefs T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):EL142-7. PubMed ID: 25096138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Audio-visual speech scene analysis: characterization of the dynamics of unbinding and rebinding the McGurk effect.
Nahorna O; Berthommier F; Schwartz JL
J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Jan; 137(1):362-77. PubMed ID: 25618066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Speech identification in noise: Contribution of temporal, spectral, and visual speech cues.
Kim J; Davis C; Groot C
J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Dec; 126(6):3246-57. PubMed ID: 20000938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise.
Gosselin PA; Gagné JP
Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):786-92. PubMed ID: 21916790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Effects of noise and audiovisual cues on speech processing in adults with and without ADHD.
Michalek AM; Watson SM; Ash I; Ringleb S; Raymer A
Int J Audiol; 2014 Mar; 53(3):145-52. PubMed ID: 24456181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Neural Mechanisms Underlying Cross-Modal Phonetic Encoding.
Shahin AJ; Backer KC; Rosenblum LD; Kerlin JR
J Neurosci; 2018 Feb; 38(7):1835-1849. PubMed ID: 29263241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bimodal audio-visual training enhances auditory adaptation process.
Kawase T; Sakamoto S; Hori Y; Maki A; Suzuki Y; Kobayashi T
Neuroreport; 2009 Sep; 20(14):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19629016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of acoustic fine structure cues on the recognition of auditory-only and audiovisual speech.
Meister H; Fuersen K; Schreitmueller S; Walger M
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Jun; 139(6):3116. PubMed ID: 27369134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Utilization of visual information and listener strategies in intelligibility impairment related to bilateral facial paresis.
Keintz C
Int J Speech Lang Pathol; 2011 Dec; 13(6):510-7. PubMed ID: 21682545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing.
Jørgensen S; Dau T
J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Sep; 130(3):1475-87. PubMed ID: 21895088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
