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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24960589)

  • 1. Masking release, processing speed and listening effort in adults with traumatic brain injury.
    Krause MO; Kennedy MR; Nelson PB
    Brain Inj; 2014; 28(11):1473-84. PubMed ID: 24960589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. Pupil Responses of Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury During Processing of Speech in Noise.
    Koelewijn T; van Haastrecht JAP; Kramer SE
    Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518811444. PubMed ID: 30482105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effect of reward on listening effort as reflected by the pupil dilation response.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():106-112. PubMed ID: 30096490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. The influence of informational masking on speech perception and pupil response in adults with hearing impairment.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1596-606. PubMed ID: 24606294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Predicting the effect of hearing loss and audibility on amplified speech reception in a multi-talker listening scenario.
    Woods WS; Kalluri S; Pentony S; Nooraei N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4268-78. PubMed ID: 23742377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Associations Between Auditory Working Memory, Self-Perceived Listening Effort, and Hearing Difficulty in Adults With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.
    Lander DM; Liu S; Roup CM
    Ear Hear; 2024 May-Jun 01; 45(3):695-709. PubMed ID: 38229218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Objective Assessment of Listening Effort: Coregistration of Pupillometry and EEG.
    Miles K; McMahon C; Boisvert I; Ibrahim R; de Lissa P; Graham P; Lyxell B
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517706396. PubMed ID: 28752807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Development and evaluation of a linguistically and audiologically controlled sentence intelligibility test.
    Uslar VN; Carroll R; Hanke M; Hamann C; Ruigendijk E; Brand T; Kollmeier B
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Oct; 134(4):3039-56. PubMed ID: 24116439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Rönnberg J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep; 134(3):2225-34. PubMed ID: 23967952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Development of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (LISN-S).
    Cameron S; Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 2007 Apr; 28(2):196-211. PubMed ID: 17496671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Slowing down after a mild traumatic brain injury: a strategy to improve cognitive task performance?
    Ozen LJ; Fernandes MA
    Arch Clin Neuropsychol; 2012 Jan; 27(1):85-100. PubMed ID: 22068441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sentence planning following traumatic brain injury.
    Ellis C; Peach RK
    NeuroRehabilitation; 2009; 24(3):255-66. PubMed ID: 19458433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.