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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12013380)

  • 1. Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: support for a planning/control model of action.
    Glover S; Dixon P
    Percept Psychophys; 2002 Feb; 64(2):266-78. PubMed ID: 12013380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A temporal analysis of grasping in the Ebbinghaus illusion: planning versus online control.
    Danckert JA; Sharif N; Haffenden AM; Schiff KC; Goodale MA
    Exp Brain Res; 2002 May; 144(2):275-80. PubMed ID: 12012166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion on different behaviors: one- and two-handed grasping; one- and two-handed manual estimation; metric and comparative judgment.
    Vishton PM; Fabre E
    Spat Vis; 2003; 16(3-4):377-92. PubMed ID: 12858958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion are ambiguous.
    Gilster R; Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP; Wiesner CD; Ferstl R
    Exp Brain Res; 2006 May; 171(3):416-20. PubMed ID: 16710685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching.
    Glover SR; Dixon P
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2001 Jun; 27(3):560-72. PubMed ID: 11424646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The functional subdivision of the visual brain: Is there a real illusion effect on action? A multi-lab replication study.
    Kopiske KK; Bruno N; Hesse C; Schenk T; Franz VH
    Cortex; 2016 Jun; 79():130-52. PubMed ID: 27156056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: obstacle avoidance is not the explanation.
    Franz VH; Bülthoff HH; Fahle M
    Exp Brain Res; 2003 Apr; 149(4):470-7. PubMed ID: 12677327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping behaviour of children.
    Hanisch C; Konczak J; Dohle C
    Exp Brain Res; 2001 Mar; 137(2):237-45. PubMed ID: 11315553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Similarity of the perimeters in the Ebbinghaus illusion.
    Choplin JM; Medin DL
    Percept Psychophys; 1999 Jan; 61(1):3-12. PubMed ID: 10070195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Visuomotor 'immunity' to perceptual illusion: a mismatch of attentional demands cannot explain the perception-action dissociation.
    Dewar MT; Carey DP
    Neuropsychologia; 2006; 44(8):1501-8. PubMed ID: 16364378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of the Uznadze illusion is temporally dynamic in closed-loop but temporally constant in open-loop grasping.
    Uccelli S; Bruno N
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2024 Jun; 77(6):1238-1249. PubMed ID: 37784227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion: not a change in perceived length.
    Biegstraaten M; de Grave DD; Brenner E; Smeets JB
    Exp Brain Res; 2007 Jan; 176(3):497-503. PubMed ID: 17146650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Grasping Weber's illusion: the effect of receptor density differences on grasping and matching.
    Anema HA; Wolswijk VW; Ruis C; Dijkerman HC
    Cogn Neuropsychol; 2008; 25(7-8):951-67. PubMed ID: 19378413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. How preparation to touch or grasp alters visual size perception.
    Vishton PM; Jones ED; Stevens JA
    Cogn Process; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 1():431-5. PubMed ID: 26245648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The visuomotor system resists the horizontal-vertical illusion.
    Servos P; Carnahan H; Fedwick J
    J Mot Behav; 2000 Dec; 32(4):400-4. PubMed ID: 11114232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Planning versus online control: dynamic illusion effects in grasping?
    Franz VH
    Spat Vis; 2003; 16(3-4):211-23. PubMed ID: 12858948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. More thoughts on perceiving and grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion.
    Otto-de Haart EG; Carey DP; Milne AB
    Neuropsychologia; 1999 Dec; 37(13):1437-44. PubMed ID: 10617263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A double dissociation between action and perception in the context of visual illusions: opposite effects of real and illusory size.
    Ganel T; Tanzer M; Goodale MA
    Psychol Sci; 2008 Mar; 19(3):221-5. PubMed ID: 18315792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Superadditivity of the Ebbinghaus and Müller-Lyer illusions depends on the method of comparison used.
    Foster RM; Franz VH
    Perception; 2014; 43(8):783-95. PubMed ID: 25549508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Computation of mean size is based on perceived size.
    Im HY; Chong SC
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Feb; 71(2):375-84. PubMed ID: 19304626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.