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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26581947)

  • 1. What Comes After /f/? Prediction in Speech Derives From Data-Explanatory Processes.
    McMurray B; Jongman A
    Psychol Sci; 2016 Jan; 27(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 26581947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Listeners can anticipate future segments before they identify the current one.
    Schreiber KE; McMurray B
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2019 May; 81(4):1147-1166. PubMed ID: 31087271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Formant transitions in fricative identification: the role of native fricative inventory.
    Wagner A; Ernestus M; Cutler A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2006 Oct; 120(4):2267-77. PubMed ID: 17069322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Coding pitch differences in voiceless fricatives: Whispered relative to normal speech.
    Heeren WF
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Dec; 138(6):3427-38. PubMed ID: 26723300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Perceptual integration of acoustic cues to laryngeal contrasts in Korean fricatives.
    Lee S; Katz J
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):605-11. PubMed ID: 26936544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Listener expectations and gender bias in nonsibilant fricative perception.
    Babel M; McGuire G
    Phonetica; 2013; 70(1-2):117-51. PubMed ID: 24157437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Perception of clear fricatives by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners.
    Maniwa K; Jongman A; Wade T
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2008 Feb; 123(2):1114-25. PubMed ID: 18247912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Differences in talker recognition by preschoolers and adults.
    Creel SC; Jimenez SR
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2012 Dec; 113(4):487-509. PubMed ID: 22958962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Language specificity in the perception of voiceless sibilant fricatives in Japanese and English: implications for cross-language differences in speech-sound development.
    Li F; Munson B; Edwards J; Yoneyama K; Hall K
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Feb; 129(2):999-1011. PubMed ID: 21361456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cross-language similarities and differences in the uptake of place information.
    Wagner A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4256-67. PubMed ID: 23742376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing.
    Eisner F; McQueen JM
    Percept Psychophys; 2005 Feb; 67(2):224-38. PubMed ID: 15971687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Multi-modal cross-linguistic perception of fricatives in clear speech.
    Cho S; Jongman A; Wang Y; Sereno JA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Apr; 147(4):2609. PubMed ID: 32359282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evidence for hierarchical categorization of coarticulated phonemes.
    Smits R
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2001 Oct; 27(5):1145-62. PubMed ID: 11642700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The influence of linguistic experience on the cognitive processing of pitch in speech and nonspeech sounds.
    Bent T; Bradlow AR; Wright BA
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2006 Feb; 32(1):97-103. PubMed ID: 16478329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Acoustic-phonetic and auditory mechanisms of adaptation in the perception of sibilant fricatives.
    Chodroff E; Wilson C
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 May; 82(4):2027-2048. PubMed ID: 31875314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of speaker variability and noise on Mandarin fricative identification by native and non-native listeners.
    Lee CY; Zhang Y; Li X; Tao L; Bond ZS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Aug; 132(2):1130-40. PubMed ID: 22894232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations.
    McMurray B; Jongman A
    Psychol Rev; 2011 Apr; 118(2):219-46. PubMed ID: 21417542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Acoustically distinct and perceptually ambiguous: ʔayʔaǰuθəm (Salish) fricatives.
    Mellesmoen G; Babel M
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 Apr; 147(4):2959. PubMed ID: 32359305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Using speech sounds to test functional spectral resolution in listeners with cochlear implants.
    Winn MB; Litovsky RY
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1430-42. PubMed ID: 25786954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Tracking perception of the sounds of English.
    Warner N; McQueen JM; Cutler A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 May; 135(5):2995-3006. PubMed ID: 24815279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.