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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

908 related items for PubMed ID: 21921797

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises.
    Desjardins JL, Doherty KA.
    Ear Hear; 2013 Aug; 34(3):261-72. PubMed ID: 23095723
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. The influence of informational masking on speech perception and pupil response in adults with hearing impairment.
    Koelewijn T, Zekveld AA, Festen JM, Kramer SE.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Mar; 135(3):1596-606. PubMed ID: 24606294
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response.
    Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB, Dubno JR.
    Ear Hear; 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93. PubMed ID: 17804982
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Effects of periodic masker interruption on the intelligibility of interrupted speech.
    Iyer N, Brungart DS, Simpson BD.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Sep; 122(3):1693. PubMed ID: 17927429
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. The eye as a window to the listening brain: neural correlates of pupil size as a measure of cognitive listening load.
    Zekveld AA, Heslenfeld DJ, Johnsrude IS, Versfeld NJ, Kramer SE.
    Neuroimage; 2014 Nov 01; 101():76-86. PubMed ID: 24999040
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
    Bernstein JG, Grant KW.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 May 01; 125(5):3358-72. PubMed ID: 19425676
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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 May 01; 32(6):e16-25. PubMed ID: 21826004
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Estimates of basilar-membrane nonlinearity effects on masking of tones and speech.
    Dubno JR, Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB.
    Ear Hear; 2007 Feb 01; 28(1):2-17. PubMed ID: 17204895
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Informational masking with speech-on-speech intelligibility: Pupil response and time-course of learning.
    Versfeld NJ, Lie S, Kramer SE, Zekveld AA.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Apr 01; 149(4):2353. PubMed ID: 33940918
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise.
    Zekveld AA, Rudner M, Johnsrude IS, Rönnberg J.
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Sep 01; 134(3):2225-34. PubMed ID: 23967952
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Acoustic stapedius reflex function in man revisited.
    Aiken SJ, Andrus JN, Bance M, Phillips DP.
    Ear Hear; 2013 Sep 01; 34(4):e38-51. PubMed ID: 23403808
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. 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 01; 367():106-112. PubMed ID: 30096490
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Effects of attention on the speech reception threshold and pupil response of people with impaired and normal hearing.
    Koelewijn T, Versfeld NJ, Kramer SE.
    Hear Res; 2017 Oct 01; 354():56-63. PubMed ID: 28869841
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Effect of priming on energetic and informational masking in a same-different task.
    Jones JA, Freyman RL.
    Ear Hear; 2012 Oct 01; 33(1):124-33. PubMed ID: 21841488
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 46.