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.
482 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24999040)
1. The eye as a window to the listening brain: neural correlates of pupil size as a measure of cognitive listening load. Zekveld AA; Heslenfeld DJ; Johnsrude IS; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE Neuroimage; 2014 Nov; 101():76-86. PubMed ID: 24999040 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
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. Hearing Impairment: Reduced Pupil Dilation Response and Frontal Activation During Degraded Speech Perception. Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Heslenfeld DJ; Versfeld NJ; Vriend C J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2024 Nov; 67(11):4549-4566. PubMed ID: 39392910 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: insights from pupillometry. Zekveld AA; Kramer SE Psychophysiology; 2014 Mar; 51(3):277-84. PubMed ID: 24506437 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Parametric Cognitive Load Reveals Hidden Costs in the Neural Processing of Perfectly Intelligible Degraded Speech. Ritz H; Wild CJ; Johnsrude IS J Neurosci; 2022 Jun; 42(23):4619-4628. PubMed ID: 35508382 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test. Wendt D; Koelewijn T; Książek P; Kramer SE; Lunner T Hear Res; 2018 Nov; 369():67-78. PubMed ID: 29858121 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation. Ohlenforst B; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Wendt D; Naylor G; Wang Y; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():68-79. PubMed ID: 28622894 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Copresence Was Found to Be Related to Some Pupil Measures in Persons With Hearing Loss While They Performed a Speech-in-Noise Task. Pielage H; Plain BJ; Saunders GH; Versfeld NJ; Lunner T; Kramer SE; Zekveld AA Ear Hear; 2023 Sep-Oct 01; 44(5):1190-1201. PubMed ID: 37012623 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The Influence of Hearing Loss on the Pupil Response to Degraded Speech. Zekveld AA; Pielage H; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2023 Oct; 66(10):4083-4099. PubMed ID: 37699194 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effects of attention on the speech reception threshold and pupil response of people with impaired and normal hearing. Koelewijn T; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE Hear Res; 2017 Oct; 354():56-63. PubMed ID: 28869841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The pupil response reveals increased listening effort when it is difficult to focus attention. Koelewijn T; de Kluiver H; Shinn-Cunningham BG; Zekveld AA; Kramer SE Hear Res; 2015 May; 323():81-90. PubMed ID: 25732724 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Frontotemporal activation differs between perception of simulated cochlear implant speech and speech in background noise: An image-based fNIRS study. Defenderfer J; Forbes S; Wijeakumar S; Hedrick M; Plyler P; Buss AT Neuroimage; 2021 Oct; 240():118385. PubMed ID: 34256138 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Acoustic richness modulates the neural networks supporting intelligible speech processing. Lee YS; Min NE; Wingfield A; Grossman M; Peelle JE Hear Res; 2016 Mar; 333():108-117. PubMed ID: 26723103 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]