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 *

193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26973564)

  • 1. Autonomic Nervous System Responses During Perception of Masked Speech may Reflect Constructs other than Subjective Listening Effort.
    Francis AL; MacPherson MK; Chandrasekaran B; Alvar AM
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():263. PubMed ID: 26973564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Listening Effort by Native and Nonnative Listeners Due to Noise, Reverberation, and Talker Foreign Accent During English Speech Perception.
    Peng ZE; Wang LM
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2019 Apr; 62(4):1068-1081. PubMed ID: 30986135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of hearing acuity on psychophysiological responses to effortful speech perception.
    Keur-Huizinga L; Huizinga NA; Zekveld AA; Versfeld NJ; van de Ven SRB; van Dijk WAJ; de Geus EJC; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2024 Jul; 448():109031. PubMed ID: 38761554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Subjective and psychophysiological indexes of listening effort in a competing-talker task.
    Mackersie CL; Cones H
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Feb; 22(2):113-22. PubMed ID: 21463566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Informational Masking Effects on Neural Encoding of Stimulus Onset and Acoustic Change.
    Niemczak CE; Vander Werff KR
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):156-167. PubMed ID: 29782442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Investigating the Influences of Task Demand and Reward on Cardiac Pre-Ejection Period Reactivity During a Speech-in-Noise Task.
    Plain B; Richter M; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Bhuiyan T; Kramer SE
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(3):718-731. PubMed ID: 33201048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Non-native listeners' recognition of high-variability speech using PRESTO.
    Tamati TN; Pisoni DB
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2014 Oct; 25(9):869-92. PubMed ID: 25405842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Social observation increases the cardiovascular response of hearing-impaired listeners during a speech reception task.
    Plain B; Pielage H; Richter M; Bhuiyan TA; Lunner T; Kramer SE; Zekveld AA
    Hear Res; 2021 Oct; 410():108334. PubMed ID: 34450568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Listener characteristics differentially affect self-reported and physiological measures of effort associated with two challenging listening conditions.
    Francis AL; Bent T; Schumaker J; Love J; Silbert N
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2021 May; 83(4):1818-1841. PubMed ID: 33438149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Neural responses to naturalistic audiovisual speech are related to listening demand in cochlear implant users.
    Xiu B; Paul BT; Chen JM; Le TN; Lin VY; Dimitrijevic A
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2022; 16():1043499. PubMed ID: 36419642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Impact of Effortful Word Recognition on Supportive Neural Systems Measured by Alpha and Theta Power.
    Ryan DB; Eckert MA; Sellers EW; Schairer KS; McBee MT; Jones MR; Smith SL
    Ear Hear; 2022 Sep-Oct 01; 43(5):1549-1562. PubMed ID: 35363640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effects of Additional Low-Pass-Filtered Speech on Listening Effort for Noise-Band-Vocoded Speech in Quiet and in Noise.
    Pals C; Sarampalis A; van Dijk M; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 29757801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sentence Recognition in Steady-State Speech-Shaped Noise versus Four-Talker Babble.
    Vermiglio AJ; Herring CC; Heeke P; Post CE; Fang X
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Jan; 30(1):54-65. PubMed ID: 30461388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Autonomic Nervous System Correlates of Speech Categorization Revealed Through Pupillometry.
    Lewis GA; Bidelman GM
    Front Neurosci; 2019; 13():1418. PubMed ID: 31998068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Subjective ratings of masker disturbance during the perception of native and non-native speech.
    Kilman L; Zekveld AA; Hällgren M; Rönnberg J
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1065. PubMed ID: 26321967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Investigating effortful speech perception using fNIRS and pupillometry measures.
    Zhou X; Burg E; Kan A; Litovsky RY
    Curr Res Neurobiol; 2022; 3():100052. PubMed ID: 36518346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.