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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4081099)

  • 1. Isolating cognitive modules with the dual-task paradigm: are speech perception and production separate processes?
    Shallice T; McLeod P; Lewis K
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 1985 Nov; 37(4):507-32. PubMed ID: 4081099
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition.
    Simpson GB
    Psychol Bull; 1984 Sep; 96(2):316-40. PubMed ID: 6385046
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Age-related differences in irrelevant-speech effects.
    Bell R; Buchner A; Mund I
    Psychol Aging; 2008 Jun; 23(2):377-91. PubMed ID: 18573011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise.
    Gosselin PA; Gagné JP
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Nov; 50(11):786-92. PubMed ID: 21916790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Impact of cognition and noise reduction on speech perception in adults with unilateral cochlear implants.
    Purdy SC; Welch D; Giles E; Morgan CL; Tenhagen R; Kuruvilla-Mathew A
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2017 May; 18(3):162-170. PubMed ID: 28335695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Behavioral Assessment of Listening Effort Using a Dual-Task Paradigm.
    Gagné JP; Besser J; Lemke U
    Trends Hear; 2017 Jan; 21():2331216516687287. PubMed ID: 28091178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Attentional demands of visual word recognition.
    Herdman CM; Dobbs AR
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1989 Feb; 15(1):124-32. PubMed ID: 2522522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Modeling Two-Channel Speech Processing With the EPIC Cognitive Architecture.
    Kieras DE; Wakefield GH; Thompson ER; Iyer N; Simpson BD
    Top Cogn Sci; 2016 Jan; 8(1):291-304. PubMed ID: 26748483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Isolating the contributions of familiarity and source information to item recognition: a time course analysis.
    McElree B; Dolan PO; Jacoby LL
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1999 May; 25(3):563-82. PubMed ID: 10368927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Information integration in cross-modal pattern recognition: an argument for acquired modularity.
    Thompson LA; Lee KM
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 1996 Jun; 92(1):79-104. PubMed ID: 8693955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing speech.
    Francis AL
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Feb; 72(2):501-16. PubMed ID: 20139463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Word recognition in early reading: a review of the direct and indirect access hypotheses.
    Barron RW
    Cognition; 1986 Nov; 24(1-2):93-119. PubMed ID: 3539489
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Perception of visible speech: influence of spatial quantization.
    Campbell CS; Massaro DW
    Perception; 1997; 26(5):627-44. PubMed ID: 9488886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cognitive processes in reading text.
    Healy AF
    Cognition; 1981; 10(1-3):119-26. PubMed ID: 7198525
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Divided attention disrupts perceptual encoding during speech recognition.
    Mattys SL; Palmer SD
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2015 Mar; 137(3):1464-72. PubMed ID: 25786957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Attention capture is modulated in dual-task situations.
    Boot WR; Brockmole JR; Simons DJ
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2005 Aug; 12(4):662-8. PubMed ID: 16447379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Information processing models: microscopes of the mind.
    Massaro DW; Cowan N
    Annu Rev Psychol; 1993; 44():383-425. PubMed ID: 8434893
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cognitive pitfall! Videogame players are not immune to dual-task costs.
    Donohue SE; James B; Eslick AN; Mitroff SR
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2012 Jul; 74(5):803-9. PubMed ID: 22669792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Lateralization, physiognomic perception, and flexibility of cognitive control.
    Lombardi KL
    Percept Mot Skills; 1982 Dec; 55(3 Pt 2):1063-70. PubMed ID: 7167292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: the effects of providing visual speech cues.
    Fraser S; Gagné JP; Alepins M; Dubois P
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2010 Feb; 53(1):18-33. PubMed ID: 19635945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.