220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36938784)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation.
Ohlenforst B; Zekveld AA; Lunner T; Wendt D; Naylor G; Wang Y; Versfeld NJ; Kramer SE
Hear Res; 2017 Aug; 351():68-79. PubMed ID: 28622894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Listening Effort in Cochlear Implant Users: The Effect of Speech Intelligibility, Noise Reduction Processing, and Working Memory Capacity on the Pupil Dilation Response.
Dingemanse G; Goedegebure A
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2022 Jan; 65(1):392-404. PubMed ID: 34898265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Benefit of Higher Maximum Force Output on Listening Effort in Bone-Anchored Hearing System Users: A Pupillometry Study.
Bianchi F; Wendt D; Wassard C; Maas P; Lunner T; Rosenbom T; Holmberg M
Ear Hear; 2019; 40(5):1220-1232. PubMed ID: 30807542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Pupil Responses of Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury During Processing of Speech in Noise.
Koelewijn T; van Haastrecht JAP; Kramer SE
Trends Hear; 2018; 22():2331216518811444. PubMed ID: 30482105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of Speech-to-Noise Ratio and Luminance on a Range of Current and Potential Pupil Response Measures to Assess Listening Effort.
Książek P; Zekveld AA; Wendt D; Fiedler L; Lunner T; Kramer SE
Trends Hear; 2021; 25():23312165211009351. PubMed ID: 33926329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
