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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11873849)

  • 1. Modality-specific auditory and visual temporal processing deficits.
    Soto-Faraco S; Spence C
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2002 Jan; 55(1):23-40. PubMed ID: 11873849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cross-modal interactions in time and space: auditory influence on visual attention in hemispatial neglect.
    Van Vleet TM; Robertson LC
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2006 Aug; 18(8):1368-79. PubMed ID: 16859421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An investigation into the temporal dimension of the Mozart effect: evidence from the attentional blink task.
    Ho C; Mason O; Spence C
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2007 May; 125(1):117-28. PubMed ID: 16942739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The meaning of the mask matters: evidence of conceptual interference in the attentional blink.
    Dux PE; Coltheart V
    Psychol Sci; 2005 Oct; 16(10):775-9. PubMed ID: 16181439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Audiovisual semantic interference and attention: evidence from the attentional blink paradigm.
    Van der Burg E; Brederoo SG; Nieuwenstein MR; Theeuwes J; Olivers CN
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2010 Jun; 134(2):198-205. PubMed ID: 20176341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Spatial modulation of repetition blindness and repetition deafness.
    Soto-Faraco S; Spence C
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2001 Nov; 54(4):1181-202. PubMed ID: 11765739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cross-modal interactions between audition, touch, and vision in endogenous spatial attention: ERP evidence on preparatory states and sensory modulations.
    Eimer M; van Velzen J; Driver J
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2002 Feb; 14(2):254-71. PubMed ID: 11970790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A case study of developmental phonological dyslexia: Is the attentional deficit in the perception of rapid stimuli sequences amodal?
    Lallier M; Donnadieu S; Berger C; Valdois S
    Cortex; 2010 Feb; 46(2):231-41. PubMed ID: 19446803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A dissociation between visual and auditory hemi-inattention: Evidence from temporal order judgements.
    Sinnett S; Juncadella M; Rafal R; Azañón E; Soto-Faraco S
    Neuropsychologia; 2007 Feb; 45(3):552-60. PubMed ID: 16690089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Temporal order judgments for audiovisual targets embedded in unimodal and bimodal distractor streams.
    Vatakis A; Spence C
    Neurosci Lett; 2006 Nov; 408(1):5-9. PubMed ID: 17010520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Audiovisual prior entry.
    Zampini M; Shore DI; Spence C
    Neurosci Lett; 2005 Jun; 381(3):217-22. PubMed ID: 15896473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Active listening impairs visual perception and selectivity: an ERP study of auditory dual-task costs on visual attention.
    Gherri E; Eimer M
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 Apr; 23(4):832-44. PubMed ID: 20465407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. On the fate of distractor stimuli in rapid serial visual presentation.
    Dux PE; Coltheart V; Harris IM
    Cognition; 2006 Apr; 99(3):355-82. PubMed ID: 15993401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The modality shift effect and the effectiveness of warning signals in different modalities.
    Rodway P
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2005 Oct; 120(2):199-226. PubMed ID: 15993828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Differences in the neural basis of automatic auditory and visual time perception: ERP evidence from an across-modal delayed response oddball task.
    Chen Y; Huang X; Luo Y; Peng C; Liu C
    Brain Res; 2010 Apr; 1325():100-11. PubMed ID: 20170647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The time-course of auditory and visual distraction effects in a new crossmodal paradigm.
    Bendixen A; Grimm S; Deouell LY; Wetzel N; Mädebach A; Schröger E
    Neuropsychologia; 2010 Jun; 48(7):2130-9. PubMed ID: 20385149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The absence of an auditory-visual attentional blink is not due to echoic memory.
    Van der Burg E; Olivers CN; Bronkhorst AW; Koelewijn T; Theeuwes J
    Percept Psychophys; 2007 Oct; 69(7):1230-41. PubMed ID: 18038959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. When cross-modal spatial attention fails.
    Prime DJ; McDonald JJ; Green J; Ward LM
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2008 Sep; 62(3):192-7. PubMed ID: 18778148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The effect of visual task difficulty and attentional direction on the detection of acoustic change as indexed by the Mismatch Negativity.
    Muller-Gass A; Stelmack RM; Campbell KB
    Brain Res; 2006 Mar; 1078(1):112-30. PubMed ID: 16497283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Attentional blink deficits observed in dyslexia depend on task demands.
    Buchholz J; Aimola Davies A
    Vision Res; 2007 May; 47(10):1292-302. PubMed ID: 17408718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.