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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12201336)

  • 1. Auditory frequency-based inhibition differs from spatial IOR.
    Prime DJ; Ward LM
    Percept Psychophys; 2002 Jul; 64(5):771-84. PubMed ID: 12201336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Inhibition of return following an auditory cue. The role of central reorienting events.
    Spence C; Driver J
    Exp Brain Res; 1998 Feb; 118(3):352-60. PubMed ID: 9497142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of the physical characteristics of cues and targets on facilitation and inhibition.
    Pratt J; Hillis J; Gold JM
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2001 Sep; 8(3):489-95. PubMed ID: 11700899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reorienting attention and inhibition of return.
    Prime DJ; Visser TA; Ward LM
    Percept Psychophys; 2006 Nov; 68(8):1310-23. PubMed ID: 17378417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cue and target processing modulate the onset of inhibition of return.
    Gabay S; Chica AB; Charras P; Funes MJ; Henik A
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Feb; 38(1):42-52. PubMed ID: 21553993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Facilitative and inhibitory effects of location and frequency cues: evidence of a modulation in perceptual sensitivity.
    Mondor TA; Breau LM
    Percept Psychophys; 1999 Apr; 61(3):438-44. PubMed ID: 10334092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The contribution of general and specific motor inhibitory sets to the so-called auditory inhibition of return.
    Tassinari G; Campara D; Benedetti C; Berlucchi G
    Exp Brain Res; 2002 Oct; 146(4):523-30. PubMed ID: 12355281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the costs and benefits of repeating a nonspatial feature in an exogenous spatial cuing paradigm.
    Klein RM; Wang Y; Dukewich KR; He S; Hu K
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2015 Oct; 77(7):2293-304. PubMed ID: 26153659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Predictability of the cue-target relation and the time-course of auditory inhibition of return.
    Mondor TA
    Percept Psychophys; 1999 Nov; 61(8):1501-9. PubMed ID: 10598465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of same- and different-modality spatial cues on auditory and visual target identification.
    Mondor TA; Amirault KJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1998 Jun; 24(3):745-55. PubMed ID: 9627413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Knowledge of response location alone is not sufficient to generate social inhibition of return.
    Welsh TN; Manzone J; McDougall L
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2014 Nov; 153():153-9. PubMed ID: 25463556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Neural correlates of spatial and non-spatial inhibition of return (IOR) in attentional orienting.
    Zhou X; Chen Q
    Neuropsychologia; 2008 Sep; 46(11):2766-75. PubMed ID: 18597795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Facilitative and inhibitory effects of cuing sound duration, intensity, and timbre.
    Mondor TA; Lacey TE
    Percept Psychophys; 2001 May; 63(4):726-36. PubMed ID: 11436741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The processes of facilitation and inhibition in a cue-target paradigm: insight from movement trajectory deviations.
    Neyedli HF; Welsh TN
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2012 Jan; 139(1):159-65. PubMed ID: 22133725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing the influence of sound parameters on crossmodal cuing in different regions of space.
    Lee J; Spence C
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Apr; 185():96-103. PubMed ID: 29438877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interaction between endogenous and exogenous orienting in crossmodal attention.
    Chen X; Chen Q; Gao D; Yue Z
    Scand J Psychol; 2012 Aug; 53(4):303-8. PubMed ID: 22670628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Interactions between exogenous auditory and visual spatial attention.
    Schmitt M; Postma A; De Haan E
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2000 Feb; 53(1):105-30. PubMed ID: 10718066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The spatial distribution of inhibition of return.
    Bennett PJ; Pratt J
    Psychol Sci; 2001 Jan; 12(1):76-80. PubMed ID: 11294232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The effect of scene removal on inhibition of return in a cue-target task.
    Redden RS; Klages J; Klein RM
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Jan; 79(1):78-84. PubMed ID: 27804031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of different directions of attentional shift on inhibition of return in three-dimensional space.
    Wang A; Liu X; Chen Q; Zhang M
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Apr; 78(3):838-47. PubMed ID: 26758976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.