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 *

228 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24053226)

  • 1. Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort.
    Houben R; van Doorn-Bierman M; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2013 Nov; 52(11):753-61. PubMed ID: 24053226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
    van den Tillaart-Haverkate M; de Ronde-Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517716844. PubMed ID: 28656807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):498-510. PubMed ID: 21233711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: the German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype.
    Zokoll MA; Wagener KC; Brand T; Buschermöhle M; Kollmeier B
    Int J Audiol; 2012 Sep; 51(9):697-707. PubMed ID: 22762202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
    Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 21921797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction.
    Sarampalis A; Kalluri S; Edwards B; Hafter E
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2009 Oct; 52(5):1230-40. PubMed ID: 19380604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm.
    Fink N; Furst M; Muchnik C
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1718-31. PubMed ID: 22978899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Increasing motivation changes subjective reports of listening effort and choice of coping strategy.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jun; 53(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 24597604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The potential of onset enhancement for increased speech intelligibility in auditory prostheses.
    Koning R; Wouters J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2569-81. PubMed ID: 23039450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Irrelevant speech effect under stationary and adaptive masking conditions.
    Park M; Kohlrausch A; van Leest A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep; 134(3):1970-81. PubMed ID: 23967930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Perceptual effects of noise reduction by time-frequency masking of noisy speech.
    Brons I; Houben R; Dreschler WA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2690-9. PubMed ID: 23039461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effect of noise envelope modulation on quality judgments of noisy speech.
    Jin IK; Kates JM; Arehart KH
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):EL277-83. PubMed ID: 23039565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Validation of a simple response-time measure of listening effort.
    Pals C; Sarampalis A; van Rijn H; Başkent D
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Sep; 138(3):EL187-92. PubMed ID: 26428811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise.
    Smits C; Theo Goverts S; Festen JM
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Mar; 133(3):1693-706. PubMed ID: 23464039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Understanding the effect of noise on electrical stimulation sequences in cochlear implants and its impact on speech intelligibility.
    Qazi OU; van Dijk B; Moonen M; Wouters J
    Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():79-87. PubMed ID: 23396271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sentence perception in listening conditions having similar speech intelligibility indices.
    Gustafson SJ; Pittman AL
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Jan; 50(1):34-40. PubMed ID: 21047291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.