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 *

302 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23785180)

  • 1. Visual information can hinder working memory processing of speech.
    Mishra S; Lunner T; Stenfelt S; Rönnberg J; Rudner M
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 56(4):1120-32. PubMed ID: 23785180
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Seeing the talker's face supports executive processing of speech in steady state noise.
    Mishra S; Lunner T; Stenfelt S; Rönnberg J; Rudner M
    Front Syst Neurosci; 2013; 7():96. PubMed ID: 24324411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Text as a Supplement to Speech in Young and Older Adults.
    Krull V; Humes LE
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37(2):164-76. PubMed ID: 26458131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Task difficulty differentially affects two measures of processing load: the pupil response during sentence processing and delayed cued recall of the sentences.
    Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 56(4):1156-65. PubMed ID: 23785182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cognitive Spare Capacity as an Index of Listening Effort.
    Rudner M
    Ear Hear; 2016; 37 Suppl 1():69S-76S. PubMed ID: 27355773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: the value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test.
    Kramer SE; Zekveld AA; Houtgast T
    Scand J Psychol; 2009 Oct; 50(5):507-15. PubMed ID: 19778398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. ERP evidence that auditory-visual speech facilitates working memory in younger and older adults.
    Frtusova JB; Winneke AH; Phillips NA
    Psychol Aging; 2013 Jun; 28(2):481-94. PubMed ID: 23421321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise.
    Parbery-Clark A; Skoe E; Lam C; Kraus N
    Ear Hear; 2009 Dec; 30(6):653-61. PubMed ID: 19734788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. In a Concurrent Memory and Auditory Perception Task, the Pupil Dilation Response Is More Sensitive to Memory Load Than to Auditory Stimulus Characteristics.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Rönnberg J; Rudner M
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(2):272-286. PubMed ID: 29923867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reliance on visible speech cues during multimodal language processing: individual and age differences.
    Thompson L; Garcia E; Malloy D
    Exp Aging Res; 2007; 33(4):373-97. PubMed ID: 17886014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Visual cues and listening effort: individual variability.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA; Hornsby BW
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2011 Oct; 54(5):1416-30. PubMed ID: 21498576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The independence of working memory capacity and audiovisual cues when listening in noise.
    Michalek AMP; Ash I; Schwartz K
    Scand J Psychol; 2018 Dec; 59(6):578-585. PubMed ID: 30180277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids.
    Rudner M; Foo C; Rönnberg J; Lunner T
    Scand J Psychol; 2009 Oct; 50(5):405-18. PubMed ID: 19778388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Auditory speech recognition and visual text recognition in younger and older adults: similarities and differences between modalities and the effects of presentation rate.
    Humes LE; Burk MH; Coughlin MP; Busey TA; Strauser LE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Apr; 50(2):283-303. PubMed ID: 17463230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users.
    Ng EH; Rudner M; Lunner T; Pedersen MS; Rönnberg J
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Jul; 52(7):433-41. PubMed ID: 23550584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.