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.
4. How the tracking of habitual rate influences speech perception. Maslowski M; Meyer AS; Bosker HR J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 Jan; 45(1):128-138. PubMed ID: 29698048 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Talker information influences spectral contrast effects in speech categorization. Assgari AA; Stilp CE J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Nov; 138(5):3023-32. PubMed ID: 26627776 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Foreign Languages Sound Fast: Evidence from Implicit Rate Normalization. Bosker HR; Reinisch E Front Psychol; 2017; 8():1063. PubMed ID: 28701977 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Natural fast speech is perceived as faster than linearly time-compressed speech. Reinisch E Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 May; 78(4):1203-17. PubMed ID: 26860711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Altering context speech rate can cause words to appear or disappear. Dilley LC; Pitt MA Psychol Sci; 2010 Nov; 21(11):1664-70. PubMed ID: 20876883 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Attentional modulation of the phonetic significance of acoustic cues. Gordon PC; Eberhardt JL; Rueckl JG Cogn Psychol; 1993 Jan; 25(1):1-42. PubMed ID: 8425384 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. On the perception of similarity among talkers. Remez RE; Fellowes JM; Nagel DS J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Dec; 122(6):3688-96. PubMed ID: 18247776 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss. Shi LF; Doherty KA J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2008 Oct; 51(5):1328-40. PubMed ID: 18664685 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Speaking rate affects the perception of duration as a suprasegmental lexical-stress cue. Reinisch E; Jesse A; McQueen JM Lang Speech; 2011 Jun; 54(Pt 2):147-65. PubMed ID: 21848077 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Who's talking now? Infants' perception of vowels with infant vocal properties. Polka L; Masapollo M; Ménard L Psychol Sci; 2014 Jul; 25(7):1448-56. PubMed ID: 24890498 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Top-down effects of syntactic sentential context on phonetic processing. Fox NP; Blumstein SE J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2016 May; 42(5):730-41. PubMed ID: 26689310 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Festen JM; van Beek JH; Rönnberg J Ear Hear; 2011; 32(6):e16-25. PubMed ID: 21826004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Do We Perceive Others Better than Ourselves? A Perceptual Benefit for Noise-Vocoded Speech Produced by an Average Speaker. Schuerman WL; Meyer A; McQueen JM PLoS One; 2015; 10(7):e0129731. PubMed ID: 26134279 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The effect of exposure to a single vowel on talker normalization for vowels. Morton JR; Sommers MS; Lulich SM J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1443-51. PubMed ID: 25786955 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Relationship between speech rate perceived and produced by the listener. Schwab S Phonetica; 2011; 68(4):243-55. PubMed ID: 22286166 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]