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.
125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38287477)
1. 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]
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. 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]
5. Impact of Effortful Word Recognition on Supportive Neural Systems Measured by Alpha and Theta Power. Ryan DB; Eckert MA; Sellers EW; Schairer KS; McBee MT; Jones MR; Smith SL Ear Hear; 2022 Sep-Oct 01; 43(5):1549-1562. PubMed ID: 35363640 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Bilingualism and Speech Understanding in Noise: Auditory and Linguistic Factors. Skoe E; Karayanidi K J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Feb; 30(2):115-130. PubMed ID: 30461397 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Validity and reliability of self-reported and neural measures of listening effort. Mohammadi Y; Østergaard J; Graversen C; Andersen OK; Biurrun Manresa J Eur J Neurosci; 2023 Dec; 58(11):4357-4370. PubMed ID: 37984406 [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. The influence of age, hearing, and working memory on the speech comprehension benefit derived from an automatic speech recognition system. Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Kessens JM; Vlaming MS; Houtgast T Ear Hear; 2009 Apr; 30(2):262-72. PubMed ID: 19194286 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reduced Semantic Context and Signal-to-Noise Ratio Increase Listening Effort As Measured Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy. Rovetti J; Goy H; Zara M; Russo FA Ear Hear; 2022; 43(3):836-848. PubMed ID: 34623112 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. Rudner M; Lunner T; Behrens T; Thorén ES; Rönnberg J J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 Sep; 23(8):577-89. PubMed ID: 22967733 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Zekveld AA; Rudner M; Johnsrude IS; Festen JM; van Beek JH; Rönnberg J Ear Hear; 2011; 32(6):e16-25. PubMed ID: 21826004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The Effect of Signal-to-Noise Ratio on Linguistic Processing in a Semantic Judgment Task: An Aging Study. Stanley N; Davis T; Estis J J Am Acad Audiol; 2017 Mar; 28(3):209-221. PubMed ID: 28277212 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Using the Repeat-Recall Test to Examine Factors Affecting Context Use. Kuk F; Slugocki C; Korhonen P J Am Acad Audiol; 2020 Nov; 31(10):771-780. PubMed ID: 33588513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Measuring the Subjective Cost of Listening Effort Using a Discounting Task. McLaughlin DJ; Braver TS; Peelle JE J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2021 Feb; 64(2):337-347. PubMed ID: 33439751 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]