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.
5. Do discrimination tasks discourage multi-dimensional stimulus processing? Evidence from a cross-modal object discrimination in rats. Jeffery KJ Behav Brain Res; 2007 Nov; 183(2):213-21. PubMed ID: 17692934 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Occasion setting in Pavlovian ambiguous target discriminations. Bueno JL; Holland PC Behav Processes; 2008 Nov; 79(3):132-47. PubMed ID: 18657599 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The remains of the trial: goal-determined inter-trial suppression of selective attention. Lleras A; Levinthal BR; Kawahara J Prog Brain Res; 2009; 176():195-213. PubMed ID: 19733758 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Attention to visual, but not tactile, properties of a stimulus results in activation of FOS protein in the visual thalamic reticular nucleus of rats. Petrof I; Brown VJ Behav Brain Res; 2010 Aug; 211(2):248-52. PubMed ID: 20359502 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Segregation of task-relevant conditioned stimuli from background stimuli by associative learning. Rothe T; Deliano M; Scheich H; Stark H Brain Res; 2009 Nov; 1297():143-59. PubMed ID: 19703425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Selective attention to specific features within objects: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Nobre AC; Rao A; Chelazzi L J Cogn Neurosci; 2006 Apr; 18(4):539-61. PubMed ID: 16768359 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Attention alters visual plasticity during exposure-based learning. Gutnisky DA; Hansen BJ; Iliescu BF; Dragoi V Curr Biol; 2009 Apr; 19(7):555-60. PubMed ID: 19268592 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Aging and cognitive slowing: example of attentional processes--evaluation procedures and related questions]. Eusop E; Sebban C; Piette F Encephale; 2001; 27(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 11294037 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Analysis of the effect of a training regime for the correct choice of matched learning in gray crows]. Smirnova AA; Bagotskaia MS; Zorina ZA Zh Vyssh Nerv Deiat Im I P Pavlova; 2003; 53(3):321-8. PubMed ID: 12889205 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Search strategies on a hole-board are impaired in rats with ventral tegmental damage: animal model for tests of thought disorder. Oades RD Biol Psychiatry; 1982 Feb; 17(2):243-58. PubMed ID: 7074182 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Visual search and dual tasks reveal two distinct attentional resources. VanRullen R; Reddy L; Koch C J Cogn Neurosci; 2004; 16(1):4-14. PubMed ID: 15006031 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The differences in learning abilities between spontaneously hypertensive (SHR) and Wistar normotensive rats are cue dependent. Lukaszewska I; Niewiadomska G Neurobiol Learn Mem; 1995 Jan; 63(1):43-53. PubMed ID: 7663879 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Feature-based attentional modulation increases with stimulus separation in divided-attention tasks. Sally SL; Vidnyánsky Z; Papathomas TV Spat Vis; 2009; 22(6):529-53. PubMed ID: 19891852 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evidence for an association between the discriminative stimulus and the response-outcome association in instrumental learning. Rescorla RA J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 1990 Oct; 16(4):326-34. PubMed ID: 2230657 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Attending to multiple visual streams: interactions between location-based and category-based attentional selection. Fagioli S; Macaluso E J Cogn Neurosci; 2009 Aug; 21(8):1628-41. PubMed ID: 18823252 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The neural processing fate of singleton target and nontarget stimuli. Akyürek EG; Dinkelbach A; Schubö A Brain Res; 2010 Jan; 1307():115-33. PubMed ID: 19833112 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]