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 *

214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34332197)

  • 1. The costs (and benefits) of effortful listening on context processing: A simultaneous electrophysiology, pupillometry, and behavioral study.
    Silcox JW; Payne BR
    Cortex; 2021 Sep; 142():296-316. PubMed ID: 34332197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Costs (and Benefits?) of Effortful Listening for Older Adults: Insights from Simultaneous Electrophysiology, Pupillometry, and Memory.
    Silcox JW; Bennett K; Copeland A; Ferguson SH; Payne BR
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2024 Jun; 36(6):997-1020. PubMed ID: 38579256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How Do We Allocate Our Resources When Listening and Memorizing Speech in Noise? A Pupillometry Study.
    Bönitz H; Lunner T; Finke M; Fiedler L; Lyxell B; Riis SK; Ng E; Valdes AL; Büchner A; Wendt D
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(4):846-859. PubMed ID: 33492008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Tracking Cognitive Spare Capacity During Speech Perception With EEG/ERP: Effects of Cognitive Load and Sentence Predictability.
    Hunter CR
    Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1144-1157. PubMed ID: 32282402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In a Concurrent Memory and Auditory Perception Task, the Pupil Dilation Response Is More Sensitive to Memory Load Than to Auditory Stimulus Characteristics.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Rönnberg J; Rudner M
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(2):272-286. PubMed ID: 29923867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Festen JM
    Ear Hear; 2010 Aug; 31(4):480-90. PubMed ID: 20588118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Predictive Sentence Context Reduces Listening Effort in Older Adults With and Without Hearing Loss and With High and Low Working Memory Capacity.
    Hunter CR; Humes LE
    Ear Hear; 2022 Jul-Aug 01; 43(4):1164-1177. PubMed ID: 34983897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Time-specific Components of Pupil Responses Reveal Alternations in Effort Allocation Caused by Memory Task Demands During Speech Identification in Noise.
    Książek P; Zekveld AA; Fiedler L; Kramer SE; Wendt D
    Trends Hear; 2023; 27():23312165231153280. PubMed ID: 36938784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effects of Background Noise and Linguistic Violations on Frontal Theta Oscillations During Effortful Listening.
    Mohammadi Y; Graversen C; Manresa JB; Østergaard J; Andersen OK
    Ear Hear; 2024 May-Jun 01; 45(3):721-729. PubMed ID: 38287477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Slower Speaking Rate Reduces Listening Effort Among Listeners With Cochlear Implants.
    Winn MB; Teece KH
    Ear Hear; 2021; 42(3):584-595. PubMed ID: 33002968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Listening effort during speech perception enhances auditory and lexical processing for non-native listeners and accents.
    Song J; Iverson P
    Cognition; 2018 Oct; 179():163-170. PubMed ID: 29957515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Input-related demands: vocoded sentences evoke different pupillometrics and subjective listening effort than sentences in speech-shaped noise.
    Giuliani NP; Venkitakrishnan S; Wu YH
    Int J Audiol; 2024 Mar; 63(3):199-206. PubMed ID: 36519812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Objective Assessment of Listening Effort: Coregistration of Pupillometry and EEG.
    Miles K; McMahon C; Boisvert I; Ibrahim R; de Lissa P; Graham P; Lyxell B
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517706396. PubMed ID: 28752807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Speech Perception in Noise and Listening Effort of Older Adults With Nonlinear Frequency Compression Hearing Aids.
    Shehorn J; Marrone N; Muller T
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(2):215-225. PubMed ID: 28806193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Extrinsic Cognitive Load Impairs Spoken Word Recognition in High- and Low-Predictability Sentences.
    Hunter CR; Pisoni DB
    Ear Hear; 2018; 39(2):378-389. PubMed ID: 28945658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Listening Effort During Sentence Processing Is Increased for Non-native Listeners: A Pupillometry Study.
    Borghini G; Hazan V
    Front Neurosci; 2018; 12():152. PubMed ID: 29593489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Text Captioning Buffers Against the Effects of Background Noise and Hearing Loss on Memory for Speech.
    Payne BR; Silcox JW; Crandell HA; Lash A; Ferguson SH; Lohani M
    Ear Hear; 2022; 43(1):115-127. PubMed ID: 34260436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of reward on listening effort as reflected by the pupil dilation response.
    Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Kramer SE
    Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():106-112. PubMed ID: 30096490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.