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 *

364 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30096490)

  • 41. Predicting the effect of hearing loss and audibility on amplified speech reception in a multi-talker listening scenario.
    Woods WS; Kalluri S; Pentony S; Nooraei N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jun; 133(6):4268-78. PubMed ID: 23742377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Copresence Was Found to Be Related to Some Pupil Measures in Persons With Hearing Loss While They Performed a Speech-in-Noise Task.
    Pielage H; Plain BJ; Saunders GH; Versfeld NJ; Lunner T; Kramer SE; Zekveld AA
    Ear Hear; 2023 Sep-Oct 01; 44(5):1190-1201. PubMed ID: 37012623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. The Task-Evoked Pupil Response in Divided Auditory Attention Tasks.
    Baldock J; Kapadia S; van Steenbrugge W
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Apr; 30(4):264-272. PubMed ID: 30461386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Pupil Dilation Is Sensitive to Semantic Ambiguity and Acoustic Degradation.
    Kadem M; Herrmann B; Rodd JM; Johnsrude IS
    Trends Hear; 2020; 24():2331216520964068. PubMed ID: 33124518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The Effects of Task Difficulty Predictability and Noise Reduction on Recall Performance and Pupil Dilation Responses.
    Micula A; Rönnberg J; Fiedler L; Wendt D; Jørgensen MC; Larsen DK; Ng EHN
    Ear Hear; 2021 Nov-Dec 01; 42(6):1668-1679. PubMed ID: 33859121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Masking release, processing speed and listening effort in adults with traumatic brain injury.
    Krause MO; Kennedy MR; Nelson PB
    Brain Inj; 2014; 28(11):1473-84. PubMed ID: 24960589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Rönnberg J; Kramer SE
    Int J Otolaryngol; 2012; 2012():865731. PubMed ID: 23091495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The relationship between talker acoustics, intelligibility, and effort in degraded listening conditions.
    Paulus M; Hazan V; Adank P
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 May; 147(5):3348. PubMed ID: 32486777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. 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]  

  • 50. Pupillometry shows the effort of auditory attention switching.
    McCloy DR; Lau BK; Larson E; Pratt KAI; Lee AKC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2017 Apr; 141(4):2440. PubMed ID: 28464660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Effect of Speech Rate on Neural Tracking of Speech.
    Müller JA; Wendt D; Kollmeier B; Debener S; Brand T
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():449. PubMed ID: 30906273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Recognition memory in noise for speech of varying intelligibility.
    Gilbert RC; Chandrasekaran B; Smiljanic R
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Jan; 135(1):389-99. PubMed ID: 24437779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. An exploratory Study of EEG Alpha Oscillation and Pupil Dilation in Hearing-Aid Users During Effortful listening to Continuous Speech.
    Seifi Ala T; Graversen C; Wendt D; Alickovic E; Whitmer WM; Lunner T
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(7):e0235782. PubMed ID: 32649733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Impact of Noise and Noise Reduction on Processing Effort: A Pupillometry Study.
    Wendt D; Hietkamp RK; Lunner T
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(6):690-700. PubMed ID: 28640038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. The effects of noise exposure and musical training on suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise.
    Yeend I; Beach EF; Sharma M; Dillon H
    Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 353():224-236. PubMed ID: 28780178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Do you hear the noise? The German matrix sentence test with a fixed noise level in subjects with normal hearing and hearing impairment.
    Wardenga N; Batsoulis C; Wagener KC; Brand T; Lenarz T; Maier H
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():71-9. PubMed ID: 26555195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing.
    Burg EA; Thakkar T; Fields T; Misurelli SM; Kuchinsky SE; Roche J; Lee DJ; Litovsky RY
    Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211013256. PubMed ID: 34024219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests.
    Hochmuth S; Kollmeier B; Brand T; Jürgens T
    Int J Audiol; 2015; 54 Suppl 2():62-70. PubMed ID: 26097982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. A virtual speaker in noisy classroom conditions: supporting or disrupting children's listening comprehension?
    Nirme J; Haake M; Lyberg Åhlander V; Brännström J; Sahlén B
    Logoped Phoniatr Vocol; 2019 Jul; 44(2):79-86. PubMed ID: 29619859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.