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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31845209)

  • 1. Face viewing behavior predicts multisensory gain during speech perception.
    Rennig J; Wegner-Clemens K; Beauchamp MS
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2020 Feb; 27(1):70-77. PubMed ID: 31845209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A link between individual differences in multisensory speech perception and eye movements.
    Gurler D; Doyle N; Walker E; Magnotti J; Beauchamp M
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2015 May; 77(4):1333-41. PubMed ID: 25810157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. High visual resolution matters in audiovisual speech perception, but only for some.
    Alsius A; Wayne RV; Paré M; Munhall KG
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Jul; 78(5):1472-87. PubMed ID: 27150616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Gaze patterns and audiovisual speech enhancement.
    Yi A; Wong W; Eizenman M
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Apr; 56(2):471-80. PubMed ID: 23275394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Free viewing of talking faces reveals mouth and eye preferring regions of the human superior temporal sulcus.
    Rennig J; Beauchamp MS
    Neuroimage; 2018 Dec; 183():25-36. PubMed ID: 30092347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Intelligibility of audiovisual sentences drives multivoxel response patterns in human superior temporal cortex.
    Rennig J; Beauchamp MS
    Neuroimage; 2022 Feb; 247():118796. PubMed ID: 34906712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of varying talker identity and listening conditions on gaze behavior during audiovisual speech perception.
    Buchan JN; Paré M; Munhall KG
    Brain Res; 2008 Nov; 1242():162-71. PubMed ID: 18621032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Audiovisual speech is more than the sum of its parts: Auditory-visual superadditivity compensates for age-related declines in audible and lipread speech intelligibility.
    Dias JW; McClaskey CM; Harris KC
    Psychol Aging; 2021 Jun; 36(4):520-530. PubMed ID: 34124922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Psychobiological Responses Reveal Audiovisual Noise Differentially Challenges Speech Recognition.
    Bidelman GM; Brown B; Mankel K; Nelms Price C
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(2):268-277. PubMed ID: 31283529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Eye Can Hear Clearly Now: Inverse Effectiveness in Natural Audiovisual Speech Processing Relies on Long-Term Crossmodal Temporal Integration.
    Crosse MJ; Di Liberto GM; Lalor EC
    J Neurosci; 2016 Sep; 36(38):9888-95. PubMed ID: 27656026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Multivariate fMRI responses in superior temporal cortex predict visual contributions to, and individual differences in, the intelligibility of noisy speech.
    Zhang Y; Rennig J; Magnotti JF; Beauchamp MS
    Neuroimage; 2023 Sep; 278():120271. PubMed ID: 37442310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Gaze behaviour in audiovisual speech perception: asymmetrical distribution of face-directed fixations.
    Everdell IT; Marsh HO; Yurick MD; Munhall KG; Paré M
    Perception; 2007; 36(10):1535-45. PubMed ID: 18265836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Fixating the eyes of a speaker provides sufficient visual information to modulate early auditory processing.
    Kaplan E; Jesse A
    Biol Psychol; 2019 Sep; 146():107724. PubMed ID: 31323242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Mouth and Voice: A Relationship between Visual and Auditory Preference in the Human Superior Temporal Sulcus.
    Zhu LL; Beauchamp MS
    J Neurosci; 2017 Mar; 37(10):2697-2708. PubMed ID: 28179553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Inverse effectiveness and multisensory interactions in visual event-related potentials with audiovisual speech.
    Stevenson RA; Bushmakin M; Kim S; Wallace MT; Puce A; James TW
    Brain Topogr; 2012 Jul; 25(3):308-26. PubMed ID: 22367585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Deficits in audiovisual speech perception in normal aging emerge at the level of whole-word recognition.
    Stevenson RA; Nelms CE; Baum SH; Zurkovsky L; Barense MD; Newhouse PA; Wallace MT
    Neurobiol Aging; 2015 Jan; 36(1):283-91. PubMed ID: 25282337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Independent mechanisms of temporal and linguistic cue correspondence benefiting audiovisual speech processing.
    Fiscella S; Cappelloni MS; Maddox RK
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2022 Aug; 84(6):2016-2026. PubMed ID: 35211849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Visual fixations during processing of time-compressed audiovisual presentations.
    Perez ND; Kleiman MJ; Barenholtz E
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2024 Feb; 86(2):367-372. PubMed ID: 38175327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Neural correlates of interindividual differences in children's audiovisual speech perception.
    Nath AR; Fava EE; Beauchamp MS
    J Neurosci; 2011 Sep; 31(39):13963-71. PubMed ID: 21957257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.