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.
141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34356126)
1. Recall of Reverberant Speech in Quiet and Four-Talker Babble Noise. Koo M; Jeon J; Moon H; Suh MW; Lee JH; Oh SH; Park MK Brain Sci; 2021 Jul; 11(7):. PubMed ID: 34356126 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Effects of Noise and Serial Position on Free Recall of Spoken Words and Pupil Dilation during Encoding in Normal-Hearing Adults. Koo M; Jeon J; Moon H; Suh M; Lee J; Oh S; Park M Brain Sci; 2021 Feb; 11(2):. PubMed ID: 33672410 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
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. 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]
8. Disentangling listening effort and memory load beyond behavioural evidence: Pupillary response to listening effort during a concurrent memory task. Zhang Y; Lehmann A; Deroche M PLoS One; 2021; 16(3):e0233251. PubMed ID: 33657100 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test. Wendt D; Koelewijn T; Książek P; Kramer SE; Lunner T Hear Res; 2018 Nov; 369():67-78. PubMed ID: 29858121 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE Ear Hear; 2012; 33(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 21921797 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The influence of voice quality and multi-talker babble noise on sentence processing and recall performance in school children using cochlear implant and/or hearing aids. Jonas Brännström K; von Lochow H; Lyberg-Åhlander V; Sahlén B Logoped Phoniatr Vocol; 2019 Jul; 44(2):87-94. PubMed ID: 30204510 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response. Ohlenforst B; Wendt D; Kramer SE; Naylor G; Zekveld AA; Lunner T Hear Res; 2018 Aug; 365():90-99. PubMed ID: 29779607 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A Matrixed Speech-in-Noise Test to Discriminate Favorable Listening Conditions by Means of Intelligibility and Response Time Results. Visentin C; Prodi N J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2018 Jun; 61(6):1497-1516. PubMed ID: 29845187 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The Effects of Noise and Reverberation on Listening Effort in Adults With Normal Hearing. Picou EM; Gordon J; Ricketts TA Ear Hear; 2016; 37(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 26372266 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Effect of Background Noise on Immediate Free Recall of Words in Younger and Older Listeners with Hearing Loss. Hwang JS; Jung Y; Lee JH J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Nov; 31(10):701-707. PubMed ID: 33588512 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effect of monetary reward on listening effort and sentence recognition. Koelewijn T; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Kramer SE Hear Res; 2021 Jul; 406():108255. PubMed ID: 33964552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. A Sequential Sentence Paradigm Using Revised PRESTO Sentence Lists. Plotkowski AR; Alexander JM J Am Acad Audiol; 2016 Sep; 27(8):647-60. PubMed ID: 27564442 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The effect of background babble on working memory in young and middle-aged adults. Neidleman MT; Wambacq I; Besing J; Spitzer JB; Koehnke J J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):220-8. PubMed ID: 25751691 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]