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 *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37817666)

  • 1. The Effect of Breathy Vocal Quality on Speech Intelligibility and Listening Effort in Background Noise.
    Shen J; Heller Murray E; Kulick ER
    Trends Hear; 2023; 27():23312165231206925. PubMed ID: 37817666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Relation Between Listening Effort and Speech Intelligibility in Noise.
    Krueger M; Schulte M; Zokoll MA; Wagener KC; Meis M; Brand T; Holube I
    Am J Audiol; 2017 Oct; 26(3S):378-392. PubMed ID: 29049622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
    van den Tillaart-Haverkate M; de Ronde-Brons I; Dreschler WA; Houben R
    Trends Hear; 2017; 21():2331216517716844. PubMed ID: 28656807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Hearing Aid Noise Reduction Lowers the Sustained Listening Effort During Continuous Speech in Noise-A Combined Pupillometry and EEG Study.
    Fiedler L; Seifi Ala T; Graversen C; Alickovic E; Lunner T; Wendt D
    Ear Hear; 2021 Nov-Dec 01; 42(6):1590-1601. PubMed ID: 33950865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A joint framework for blind prediction of binaural speech intelligibility and perceived listening effort.
    Rennies J; Röttges S; Huber R; Hauth CF; Brand T
    Hear Res; 2022 Dec; 426():108598. PubMed ID: 35995688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Short Implicit Voice Training Affects Listening Effort During a Voice Cue Sensitivity Task With Vocoder-Degraded Speech.
    Biçer A; Koelewijn T; Başkent D
    Ear Hear; 2023 Jul-Aug 01; 44(4):900-916. PubMed ID: 36695603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Contributions of listening effort and intelligibility to cortical tracking of speech in adverse listening conditions.
    Ershaid H; Lizarazu M; McLaughlin D; Cooke M; Simantiraki O; Koutsogiannaki M; Lallier M
    Cortex; 2024 Mar; 172():54-71. PubMed ID: 38215511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of Noise on Speech Intelligibility and Perceived Listening Effort in Head and Neck Cancer.
    Eadie TL; Durr H; Sauder C; Nagle K; Kapsner-Smith M; Spencer KA
    Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2021 Jun; 30(3S):1329-1342. PubMed ID: 33630664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Impact of Noise and Noise Reduction on Processing Effort: A Pupillometry Study.
    Wendt D; Hietkamp RK; Lunner T
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(6):690-700. PubMed ID: 28640038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Presence of Another Individual Influences Listening Effort, But Not Performance.
    Pielage H; Zekveld AA; Saunders GH; Versfeld NJ; Lunner T; Kramer SE
    Ear Hear; 2021 Nov-Dec 01; 42(6):1577-1589. PubMed ID: 33795615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.