Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 107

1.

The pupil response is sensitive to divided attention during speech processing.

Koelewijn T, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Zekveld AA, Kramer SE.

Hear Res. 2014 Jun;312:114-20. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.03.010. Epub 2014 Apr 5.

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 Jul-Aug;32(4):498-510. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820512bb.

PMID:
21233711
3.

The pupil response reveals increased listening effort when it is difficult to focus attention.

Koelewijn T, de Kluiver H, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Zekveld AA, Kramer SE.

Hear Res. 2015 May;323:81-90. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.02.004. Epub 2015 Feb 27.

4.

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 Mar-Apr;33(2):291-300. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182310019.

PMID:
21921797
5.

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. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f251.

PMID:
20588118
6.

Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: insights from pupillometry.

Zekveld AA, Kramer SE.

Psychophysiology. 2014 Mar;51(3):277-84. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12151. Epub 2014 Feb 9.

PMID:
24506437
7.

Task difficulty differentially affects two measures of processing load: the pupil response during sentence processing and delayed cued recall of the sentences.

Zekveld AA, Festen JM, Kramer SE.

J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 Aug;56(4):1156-65. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0058). Epub 2013 Jun 19.

PMID:
23785182
8.

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 1;101:76-86. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.069. Epub 2014 Jul 3.

PMID:
24999040
9.

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. doi: 10.1121/1.4863198.

PMID:
24606294
10.

The Impact of Auditory Spectral Resolution on Listening Effort Revealed by Pupil Dilation.

Winn MB, Edwards JR, Litovsky RY.

Ear Hear. 2015 Jul-Aug;36(4):e153-65. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000145.

11.

Comparison of speech discrimination in noise and directional hearing with 2 different sound processors of a bone-anchored hearing system in adults with unilateral severe or profound sensorineural hearing loss.

Wesarg T, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, Beck R, Schild C, Hassepass F, Kroeger S, Hocke T, Arndt S.

Otol Neurotol. 2013 Aug;34(6):1064-70. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31828bb781.

PMID:
23856626
12.

Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss.

Kuchinsky SE, Ahlstrom JB, Vaden KI Jr, Cute SL, Humes LE, Dubno JR, Eckert MA.

Psychophysiology. 2013 Jan;50(1):23-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01477.x. Epub 2012 Nov 15.

13.

The effect of hearing aid technologies on listening in an automobile.

Wu YH, Stangl E, Bentler RA, Stanziola RW.

J Am Acad Audiol. 2013 Jun;24(6):474-85. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.24.6.4.

14.

Cochlear implant microphone location affects speech recognition in diffuse noise.

Kolberg ER, Sheffield SW, Davis TJ, Sunderhaus LW, Gifford RH.

J Am Acad Audiol. 2015 Jan;26(1):51-8; quiz 109-10. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.26.1.6.

15.

Age and measurement time-of-day effects on speech recognition in noise.

Veneman CE, Gordon-Salant S, Matthews LJ, Dubno JR.

Ear Hear. 2013 May-Jun;34(3):288-99. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31826d0b81.

16.

Pupil dilation dynamics track attention to high-level information.

Kang OE, Huffer KE, Wheatley TP.

PLoS One. 2014 Aug 27;9(8):e102463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102463. eCollection 2014.

17.

Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation.

Kramer SE, Kapteyn TS, Festen JM, Kuik DJ.

Audiology. 1997 May-Jun;36(3):155-64.

PMID:
9193733
18.

Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report.

Tamati TN, Gilbert JL, Pisoni DB.

J Am Acad Audiol. 2013 Jul-Aug;24(7):616-34. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.24.7.10.

19.

Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results.

Laszig R, Aschendorff A, Stecker M, Müller-Deile J, Maune S, Dillier N, Weber B, Hey M, Begall K, Lenarz T, Battmer RD, Böhm M, Steffens T, Strutz J, Linder T, Probst R, Allum J, Westhofen M, Doering W.

Otol Neurotol. 2004 Nov;25(6):958-68.

PMID:
15547426
20.

Spatial attention increases the pupillary response to light changes.

Binda P, Murray SO.

J Vis. 2015 Feb 2;15(2):1. doi: 10.1167/15.2.1.

PMID:
25645434

Supplemental Content

Support Center