Connection

Co-Authors

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications co-authored by Judy Dubno and Jayne Ahlstrom.
Judy Dubno
Connection Strength
6.957
Jayne Ahlstrom
  1. Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening. Ear Hear. 2014 Jan-Feb; 35(1):72-85.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.490
  2. Spatial benefit of bilateral hearing AIDS. Ear Hear. 2009 Apr; 30(2):203-18.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.352
  3. Estimates of basilar-membrane nonlinearity effects on masking of tones and speech. Ear Hear. 2007 Feb; 28(1):2-17.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.303
  4. Spectral and threshold effects on recognition of speech at higher-than-normal levels. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Jul; 120(1):310-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.291
  5. Word recognition in noise at higher-than-normal levels: decreases in scores and increases in masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Aug; 118(2):914-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.273
  6. Recognition of filtered words in noise at higher-than-normal levels: decreases in scores with and without increases in masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Aug; 118(2):923-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.273
  7. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Apr; 113(4 Pt 1):2084-94.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.232
  8. Unique patterns of hearing loss and cognition in older adults' neural responses to cues for speech recognition difficulty. Brain Struct Funct. 2022 Jan; 227(1):203-218.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.210
  9. Glimpsing keywords across sentences in noise: A microstructural analysis of acoustic, lexical, and listener factors. J Acoust Soc Am. 2021 09; 150(3):1979.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.208
  10. Comparing Speech Recognition for Listeners With Normal and Impaired Hearing: Simulations for Controlling Differences in Speech Levels and Spectral Shape. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020 12 14; 63(12):4289-4299.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.197
  11. Sentence perception in noise by hearing-aid users predicted by syllable-constituent perception and the use of context. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020 01; 147(1):273.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.186
  12. Contributions of Voice Expectations to Talker Selection in Younger and Older Adults With Normal Hearing. Trends Hear. 2020 Jan-Dec; 24:2331216520915110.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.186
  13. Age effects on the contributions of envelope and periodicity cues to recognition of interrupted speech in quiet and with a competing talker. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019 03; 145(3):EL173.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.175
  14. Age effects on perceptual organization of speech: Contributions of glimpsing, phonemic restoration, and speech segregation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018 07; 144(1):267.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.167
  15. Amplitude modulation detection with a short-duration carrier: Effects of a precursor and hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018 04; 143(4):2232.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.164
  16. Factors associated with benefit of active middle ear implants compared to conventional hearing aids. Laryngoscope. 2018 09; 128(9):2133-2138.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.163
  17. Talker identification: Effects of masking, hearing loss, and age. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018 02; 143(2):1085.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.163
  18. Syllable-constituent perception by hearing-aid users: Common factors in quiet and noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017 04; 141(4):2933.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.153
  19. Simultaneous and forward masking of vowels and stop consonants: Effects of age, hearing loss, and spectral shaping. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017 02; 141(2):1133.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.152
  20. Effects of age and hearing loss on concurrent vowel identification. J Acoust Soc Am. 2016 Dec; 140(6):4142.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.150
  21. Clinical Implications of Word Recognition Differences in Earphone and Aided Conditions. Otol Neurotol. 2016 12; 37(10):1475-1481.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.150
  22. Effects of age and hearing loss on overshoot. J Acoust Soc Am. 2016 Oct; 140(4):2481.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.148
  23. Glimpsing Speech in the Presence of Nonsimultaneous Amplitude Modulations From a Competing Talker: Effect of Modulation Rate, Age, and Hearing Loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2016 10 01; 59(5):1198-1207.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.148
  24. Sentence intelligibility during segmental interruption and masking by speech-modulated noise: Effects of age and hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015 Jun; 137(6):3487-501.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.135
  25. Computational modeling of individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Dec; 15(6):945-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.129
  26. Computational model predictions of cues for concurrent vowel identification. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Oct; 15(5):823-37.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.127
  27. Level-dependent changes in perception of speech envelope cues. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2012 Dec; 13(6):835-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.111
  28. Individual and level-dependent differences in masking for adults with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Apr; 131(4):EL323-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.108
  29. Level-dependent changes in detection of temporal gaps in noise markers by adults with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Nov; 130(5):2928-38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.105
  30. Individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2012 Feb; 13(1):91-108.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.105
  31. Age-related differences in gap detection: effects of task difficulty and cognitive ability. Hear Res. 2010 Jun 01; 264(1-2):21-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.091
  32. At the heart of the ventral attention system: the right anterior insula. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Aug; 30(8):2530-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  33. Age-related differences in the temporal modulation transfer function with pure-tone carriers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Dec; 124(6):3841-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.086
  34. Factors affecting the benefits of high-frequency amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Jun; 51(3):798-813.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.083
  35. Binaural advantage for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Apr; 51(2):539-56.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.082
  36. Age-related effects on word recognition: reliance on cognitive control systems with structural declines in speech-responsive cortex. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2008 Jun; 9(2):252-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  37. Longitudinal changes in speech recognition in older persons. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Jan; 123(1):462-75.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  38. Speech recognition in noise: estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response. Ear Hear. 2007 Sep; 28(5):682-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.079
  39. Spectral contributions to the benefit from spatial separation of speech and noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002 Dec; 45(6):1297-310.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  40. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Jun; 111(6):2897-907.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.055
  41. Evidence for cortical adjustments to perceptual decision criteria during word recognition in noise. Neuroimage. 2022 06; 253:119042.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  42. Neural Presbyacusis in Humans Inferred from Age-Related Differences in Auditory Nerve Function and Structure. J Neurosci. 2021 12 15; 41(50):10293-10304.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  43. Cingulo-opercular activity affects incidental memory encoding for speech in noise. Neuroimage. 2017 08 15; 157:381-387.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  44. Task-Related Vigilance During Word Recognition in Noise for Older Adults with Hearing Loss. Exp Aging Res. 2016; 42(1):50-66.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  45. Cingulo-Opercular Function During Word Recognition in Noise for Older Adults with Hearing Loss. Exp Aging Res. 2016; 42(1):67-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  46. Cortical activity predicts which older adults recognize speech in noise and when. J Neurosci. 2015 Mar 04; 35(9):3929-37.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  47. Speech-perception training for older adults with hearing loss impacts word recognition and effort. Psychophysiology. 2014 Oct; 51(10):1046-57.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  48. The cingulo-opercular network provides word-recognition benefit. J Neurosci. 2013 Nov 27; 33(48):18979-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.030
  49. Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology. 2013 Jan; 50(1):23-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  50. Inferior frontal sensitivity to common speech sounds is amplified by increasing word intelligibility. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Nov; 49(13):3563-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  51. Word intelligibility and age predict visual cortex activity during word listening. Cereb Cortex. 2012 Jun; 22(6):1360-71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  52. Speech recognition in younger and older adults: a dependency on low-level auditory cortex. J Neurosci. 2009 May 13; 29(19):6078-87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.