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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26428811)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. Development of a test battery for evaluating speech perception in complex listening environments.
    Brungart DS; Sheffield BM; Kubli LR
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Aug; 136(2):777-90. PubMed ID: 25096112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. Behavioral Measures of Listening Effort in School-Age Children: Examining the Effects of Signal-to-Noise Ratio, Hearing Loss, and Amplification.
    McGarrigle R; Gustafson SJ; Hornsby BWY; Bess FH
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(2):381-392. PubMed ID: 29905670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The effect of changing the secondary task in dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort.
    Picou EM; Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 2014; 35(6):611-22. PubMed ID: 24992491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations.
    Pals C; Sarampalis A; Baskent D
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 56(4):1075-84. PubMed ID: 23275424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of noise suppression on intelligibility. II: An attempt to validate physical metrics.
    Hilkhuysen G; Gaubitch N; Brookes M; Huckvale M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):439-50. PubMed ID: 24437784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Development and validation of the Leuven intelligibility sentence test with male speaker (LIST-m).
    Jansen S; Koning R; Wouters J; van Wieringen A
    Int J Audiol; 2014 Jan; 53(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 24152309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, part 1: test evaluation for noise-induced hearing loss identification.
    Leensen MC; de Laat JA; Dreschler WA
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):823-34. PubMed ID: 21988504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A corpus of noise-induced word misperceptions for Spanish.
    Tóth MA; García Lecumberri ML; Tang Y; Cooke M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Feb; 137(2):EL184-9. PubMed ID: 25698048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of visual distraction on auditory-visual speech perception by younger and older listeners.
    Cohen JI; Gordon-Salant S
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 May; 141(5):EL470. PubMed ID: 28599569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.