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 *

76 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22913029)

  • 1. Discrepant visual speech facilitates covert selective listening in "cocktail party" conditions.
    Williams JA
    Percept Mot Skills; 2012 Jun; 114(3):903-14. PubMed ID: 22913029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Look at me when I'm talking to you: Selective attention at a multisensory cocktail party can be decoded using stimulus reconstruction and alpha power modulations.
    O'Sullivan AE; Lim CY; Lalor EC
    Eur J Neurosci; 2019 Oct; 50(8):3282-3295. PubMed ID: 31013361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Seeing to hear better: evidence for early audio-visual interactions in speech identification.
    Schwartz JL; Berthommier F; Savariaux C
    Cognition; 2004 Sep; 93(2):B69-78. PubMed ID: 15147940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of audio-visual integration on the detection of masked speech and non-speech sounds.
    Eramudugolla R; Henderson R; Mattingley JB
    Brain Cogn; 2011 Feb; 75(1):60-6. PubMed ID: 21067852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Degradation of labial information modifies audiovisual speech perception in cochlear-implanted children.
    Huyse A; Berthommier F; Leybaert J
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):110-21. PubMed ID: 23059850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Developmental factors and the non-native speaker effect in auditory-visual speech perception.
    Chen Y; Hazan V
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Aug; 126(2):858-65. PubMed ID: 19640050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluating the influence of the 'unity assumption' on the temporal perception of realistic audiovisual stimuli.
    Vatakis A; Spence C
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Jan; 127(1):12-23. PubMed ID: 17258164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of simulated cataracts on speech intelligibility.
    Morris NL; Chaparro A; Downs D; Wood JM
    Vision Res; 2012 Aug; 66():49-54. PubMed ID: 22750022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Linguistic experience and audio-visual perception of non-native fricatives.
    Wang Y; Behne DM; Jiang H
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Sep; 124(3):1716-26. PubMed ID: 19045662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Visual Enhancement of Relevant Speech in a 'Cocktail Party'.
    Jaha N; Shen S; Kerlin JR; Shahin AJ
    Multisens Res; 2020 Feb; 33(3):277-294. PubMed ID: 32508080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Switching in the cocktail party: exploring intentional control of auditory selective attention.
    Koch I; Lawo V; Fels J; Vorländer M
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Aug; 37(4):1140-7. PubMed ID: 21553997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cross-modal facilitation in speech prosody.
    Foxton JM; Riviere LD; Barone P
    Cognition; 2010 Apr; 115(1):71-8. PubMed ID: 20015487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises.
    Desjardins JL; Doherty KA
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(3):261-72. PubMed ID: 23095723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.