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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33136634)

  • 1. The Effect of Stimulus Choice on an EEG-Based Objective Measure of Speech Intelligibility.
    Verschueren E; Vanthornhout J; Francart T
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(6):1586-1597. PubMed ID: 33136634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effect of stimulus intensity on neural envelope tracking.
    Verschueren E; Vanthornhout J; Francart T
    Hear Res; 2021 Apr; 403():108175. PubMed ID: 33494033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Neural envelope tracking predicts speech intelligibility and hearing aid benefit in children with hearing loss.
    Van Hirtum T; Somers B; Dieudonné B; Verschueren E; Wouters J; Francart T
    Hear Res; 2023 Nov; 439():108893. PubMed ID: 37806102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Prediction of Speech Intelligibility by Means of EEG Responses to Sentences in Noise.
    Muncke J; Kuruvila I; Hoppe U
    Front Neurosci; 2022; 16():876421. PubMed ID: 35720724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Generalizable EEG Encoding Models with Naturalistic Audiovisual Stimuli.
    Desai M; Holder J; Villarreal C; Clark N; Hoang B; Hamilton LS
    J Neurosci; 2021 Oct; 41(43):8946-8962. PubMed ID: 34503996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Neural envelope tracking as a measure of speech understanding in cochlear implant users.
    Verschueren E; Somers B; Francart T
    Hear Res; 2019 Mar; 373():23-31. PubMed ID: 30580236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of directional sound processing and listener's motivation on EEG responses to continuous noisy speech: Do normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners differ?
    Mirkovic B; Debener S; Schmidt J; Jaeger M; Neher T
    Hear Res; 2019 Jun; 377():260-270. PubMed ID: 31003037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of speech masking on neural tracking of acoustic and semantic features of natural speech.
    Yasmin S; Irsik VC; Johnsrude IS; Herrmann B
    Neuropsychologia; 2023 Jul; 186():108584. PubMed ID: 37169066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Neural tracking of speech envelope does not unequivocally reflect intelligibility.
    Kösem A; Dai B; McQueen JM; Hagoort P
    Neuroimage; 2023 May; 272():120040. PubMed ID: 36935084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Neural Decoding of the Speech Envelope: Effects of Intelligibility and Spectral Degradation.
    MacIntyre AD; Carlyon RP; Goehring T
    Trends Hear; 2024; 28():23312165241266316. PubMed ID: 39183533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cortical auditory responses index the contributions of different RMS-level-dependent segments to speech intelligibility.
    Wang L; Li H; Wu EX; Chen F
    Hear Res; 2019 Nov; 383():107808. PubMed ID: 31606583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Leading and following: Noise differently affects semantic and acoustic processing during naturalistic speech comprehension.
    Zhang X; Li J; Li Z; Hong B; Diao T; Ma X; Nolte G; Engel AK; Zhang D
    Neuroimage; 2023 Nov; 282():120404. PubMed ID: 37806465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Delta-band neural envelope tracking predicts speech intelligibility in noise in preschoolers.
    Van Hirtum T; Somers B; Verschueren E; Dieudonné B; Francart T
    Hear Res; 2023 Jul; 434():108785. PubMed ID: 37172414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Predicting the intelligibility of vocoded speech.
    Chen F; Loizou PC
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(3):331-8. PubMed ID: 21206363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Incorporating models of subcortical processing improves the ability to predict EEG responses to natural speech.
    Lindboom E; Nidiffer A; Carney LH; Lalor EC
    Hear Res; 2023 Jun; 433():108767. PubMed ID: 37060895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of Task Demands on Neural Correlates of Acoustic and Semantic Processing in Challenging Listening Conditions.
    Devaraju DS; Kemp A; Eddins DA; Shrivastav R; Chandrasekaran B; Hampton Wray A
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2021 Sep; 64(9):3697-3706. PubMed ID: 34403278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Effect of Signal to Noise Ratio on Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potentials Elicited to Speech Stimuli in Infants and Adults With Normal Hearing.
    Small SA; Sharma M; Bradford M; Mandikal Vasuki PR
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(2):305-317. PubMed ID: 28863034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Predicting individual speech intelligibility from the cortical tracking of acoustic- and phonetic-level speech representations.
    Lesenfants D; Vanthornhout J; Verschueren E; Decruy L; Francart T
    Hear Res; 2019 Sep; 380():1-9. PubMed ID: 31167150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):498-510. PubMed ID: 21233711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Where is the cocktail party? Decoding locations of attended and unattended moving sound sources using EEG.
    Bednar A; Lalor EC
    Neuroimage; 2020 Jan; 205():116283. PubMed ID: 31629828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.