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 *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10764107)

  • 1. Differences in the coding of spatial relations in face identification and basic-level object recognition.
    Cooper EE; Wojan TJ
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2000 Mar; 26(2):470-88. PubMed ID: 10764107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Different spatial-relational information is used to recognise faces and emotional expressions.
    White M
    Perception; 2002; 31(6):675-82. PubMed ID: 12092794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Inversion and processing of component and spatial-relational information in faces.
    Searcy JH; Bartlett JC
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1996 Aug; 22(4):904-15. PubMed ID: 8756958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sensitivity to the displacement of facial features in negative and inverted images.
    Kemp R; McManus C; Pigott T
    Perception; 1990; 19(4):531-43. PubMed ID: 2096371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Recognition of parts of famous-face photographs by children: an experimental note.
    Campbell R; Tuck M
    Perception; 1995; 24(4):451-6. PubMed ID: 7675623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Generalization to novel images in upright and inverted faces.
    Moses Y; Ullman S; Edelman S
    Perception; 1996; 25(4):443-61. PubMed ID: 8817621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Face recognition is affected by similarity in spatial frequency range to a greater degree than within-category object recognition.
    Collin CA; Liu CH; Troje NF; McMullen PA; Chaudhuri A
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2004 Oct; 30(5):975-87. PubMed ID: 15462634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Revisiting the perception of upside-down faces.
    Murray JE; Yong E; Rhodes G
    Psychol Sci; 2000 Nov; 11(6):492-6. PubMed ID: 11202495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Parts and wholes in face recognition.
    Tanaka JW; Farah MJ
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 1993 May; 46(2):225-45. PubMed ID: 8316637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. What's so special about the average face?
    Tsao DY; Freiwald WA
    Trends Cogn Sci; 2006 Sep; 10(9):391-3. PubMed ID: 16899396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Configural face encoding and spatial frequency information.
    Boutet I; Collin C; Faubert J
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Oct; 65(7):1078-93. PubMed ID: 14674634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Spatial frequencies in short-term memory for faces: a test of three frequency-dependent hypotheses.
    Wenger MJ; Townsend JT
    Mem Cognit; 2000 Jan; 28(1):125-42. PubMed ID: 10714144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The entry point of face recognition: evidence for face expertise.
    Tanaka JW
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2001 Sep; 130(3):534-43. PubMed ID: 11561926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy.
    Konar Y; Bennett PJ; Sekuler AB
    Psychol Sci; 2010 Jan; 21(1):38-43. PubMed ID: 20424020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Attentional coding of categorical relations in scene perception: evidence from the flicker paradigm.
    Rosielle LJ; Crabb BT; Cooper EE
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2002 Jun; 9(2):319-26. PubMed ID: 12120795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Features and their configuration in face recognition.
    Tanaka JW; Sengco JA
    Mem Cognit; 1997 Sep; 25(5):583-92. PubMed ID: 9337578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effect of changes in visible area on facial recognition.
    Inui T; Miyamoto K
    Perception; 1984; 13(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 6473051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Deconstructing Marilyn: robust effects of face contexts on stimulus-response compatibility.
    Proctor RW; Pick DF
    Mem Cognit; 1999 Nov; 27(6):986-95. PubMed ID: 10586575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Face-specific configural processing of relational information.
    Leder H; Carbon CC
    Br J Psychol; 2006 Feb; 97(Pt 1):19-29. PubMed ID: 16464285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. High familiarity enhances visual change detection for face stimuli.
    Buttle H; Raymond JE
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Nov; 65(8):1296-306. PubMed ID: 14710963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.