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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27041781)

  • 1. Influences of selective adaptation on perception of audiovisual speech.
    Dias JW; Cook TC; Rosenblum LD
    J Phon; 2016 May; 56():75-84. PubMed ID: 27041781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Speech-specific audiovisual integration modulates induced theta-band oscillations.
    Lindborg A; Baart M; Stekelenburg JJ; Vroomen J; Andersen TS
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(7):e0219744. PubMed ID: 31310616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The McGurk effect in infants.
    Rosenblum LD; Schmuckler MA; Johnson JA
    Percept Psychophys; 1997 Apr; 59(3):347-57. PubMed ID: 9136265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Neural Mechanisms Underlying Cross-Modal Phonetic Encoding.
    Shahin AJ; Backer KC; Rosenblum LD; Kerlin JR
    J Neurosci; 2018 Feb; 38(7):1835-1849. PubMed ID: 29263241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A Causal Inference Model Explains Perception of the McGurk Effect and Other Incongruent Audiovisual Speech.
    Magnotti JF; Beauchamp MS
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2017 Feb; 13(2):e1005229. PubMed ID: 28207734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cross-modal phonetic encoding facilitates the McGurk illusion and phonemic restoration.
    Abbott NT; Shahin AJ
    J Neurophysiol; 2018 Dec; 120(6):2988-3000. PubMed ID: 30303762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Perceptual uncertainty explains activation differences between audiovisual congruent speech and McGurk stimuli.
    Dong C; Noppeney U; Wang S
    Hum Brain Mapp; 2024 Mar; 45(4):e26653. PubMed ID: 38488460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Early and late beta-band power reflect audiovisual perception in the McGurk illusion.
    Roa Romero Y; Senkowski D; Keil J
    J Neurophysiol; 2015 Apr; 113(7):2342-50. PubMed ID: 25568160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Use of visual information in speech perception: evidence for a visual rate effect both with and without a McGurk effect.
    Brancazio L; Miller JL
    Percept Psychophys; 2005 Jul; 67(5):759-69. PubMed ID: 16334050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Audio Visual Integration with Competing Sources in the Framework of Audio Visual Speech Scene Analysis.
    Ganesh AC; Berthommier F; Schwartz JL
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2016; 894():399-408. PubMed ID: 27080681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Audio-visual integration in noise: Influence of auditory and visual stimulus degradation on eye movements and perception of the McGurk effect.
    Stacey JE; Howard CJ; Mitra S; Stacey PC
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Oct; 82(7):3544-3557. PubMed ID: 32533526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Audiovisual sentence recognition not predicted by susceptibility to the McGurk effect.
    Van Engen KJ; Xie Z; Chandrasekaran B
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Feb; 79(2):396-403. PubMed ID: 27921268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Spatio-temporal distribution of brain activity associated with audio-visually congruent and incongruent speech and the McGurk Effect.
    Pratt H; Bleich N; Mittelman N
    Brain Behav; 2015 Nov; 5(11):e00407. PubMed ID: 26664791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Atypical audio-visual speech perception and McGurk effects in children with specific language impairment.
    Leybaert J; Macchi L; Huyse A; Champoux F; Bayard C; Colin C; Berthommier F
    Front Psychol; 2014; 5():422. PubMed ID: 24904454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Audiovisual speech perception: Moving beyond McGurk.
    Van Engen KJ; Dey A; Sommers MS; Peelle JE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Dec; 152(6):3216. PubMed ID: 36586857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The McGurk effect in the time of pandemic: Age-dependent adaptation to an environmental loss of visual speech cues.
    Chládková K; Podlipský VJ; Nudga N; Šimáčková Š
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2021 Jun; 28(3):992-1002. PubMed ID: 33443708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of invisible lip movements on phonetic perception.
    Teramoto W; Ernst MO
    Sci Rep; 2023 Apr; 13(1):6478. PubMed ID: 37081084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Being First Matters: Topographical Representational Similarity Analysis of ERP Signals Reveals Separate Networks for Audiovisual Temporal Binding Depending on the Leading Sense.
    Cecere R; Gross J; Willis A; Thut G
    J Neurosci; 2017 May; 37(21):5274-5287. PubMed ID: 28450537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Degradation of labial information modifies audiovisual speech perception in cochlear-implanted children.
    Huyse A; Berthommier F; Leybaert J
    Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):110-21. PubMed ID: 23059850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Somatosensory contribution to audio-visual speech processing.
    Ito T; Ohashi H; Gracco VL
    Cortex; 2021 Oct; 143():195-204. PubMed ID: 34450567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.