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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12434856)

  • 1. Transient and sustained effects of an auditory accessory stimulus in a visual go/no go task.
    Nakano Y
    Percept Mot Skills; 2002 Oct; 95(2):599-605. PubMed ID: 12434856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Visual and auditory accessory stimulus offset and the Simon effect.
    Nishimura A; Yokosawa K
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Oct; 72(7):1965-74. PubMed ID: 20952792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Intersensory facilitation: also concomitant visual stimuli can decrease reaction time].
    Dufft CC; Ulrich R
    Z Exp Psychol; 1999; 46(1):16-27. PubMed ID: 10067137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Facilitation effects of an auditory accessory stimulus on visual reaction time].
    Nakano Y
    Shinrigaku Kenkyu; 1997 Jun; 68(2):140-5. PubMed ID: 9278967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Interstimulus contingency facilitates saccadic responses in a bimodal go/no-go task.
    Kirchner H; Colonius H
    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2005 Sep; 25(1):261-72. PubMed ID: 16040236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Relative contribution of expectancy and immediate arousal to the facilitatory effect of an auditory accessory stimulus.
    Del-Fava F; Ribeiro-do-Valle LE
    Braz J Med Biol Res; 2004 Aug; 37(8):1161-74. PubMed ID: 15273817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Congruency reversals in an accessory signal Simon task with auditory and visual stimuli.
    Soetens E; Maetens K; Zeischka P; Henderickx D
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2010 Jul; 134(3):391-7. PubMed ID: 20451168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evidence for the auditory P3a reflecting an automatic process: elicitation during highly-focused continuous visual attention.
    Muller-Gass A; Macdonald M; Schröger E; Sculthorpe L; Campbell K
    Brain Res; 2007 Sep; 1170():71-8. PubMed ID: 17692834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The role of preparation and cue-modality in crossmodal task switching.
    Lukas S; Philipp AM; Koch I
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2010 Jul; 134(3):318-22. PubMed ID: 20398881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Time course of auditory masker effects: tapping the locus of audiovisual integration?
    Steenken R; Diederich A; Colonius H
    Neurosci Lett; 2008 Apr; 435(1):78-83. PubMed ID: 18355963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reaction time facilitation by acoustic task-irrelevant stimuli is not related to startle.
    Lipp OV; Kaplan DM; Purkis HM
    Neurosci Lett; 2006 Dec; 409(2):124-7. PubMed ID: 17010519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of endogenous and exogenous orientations of attention on inhibition of return in a cross-modal target-target aiming task.
    Lyons J; Glazebrook CM; Keetch KM; Dhillon VP; Elliott D
    J Mot Behav; 2006 May; 38(3):219-28. PubMed ID: 16709561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Visual-auditory interaction in saccadic reaction time: effects of auditory masker level.
    Steenken R; Colonius H; Diederich A; Rach S
    Brain Res; 2008 Jul; 1220():150-6. PubMed ID: 17900544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Multisensory facilitation of behavior in monkeys: effects of stimulus intensity.
    Cappe C; Murray MM; Barone P; Rouiller EM
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2010 Dec; 22(12):2850-63. PubMed ID: 20044892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. When a high-intensity "distractor" is better then a low-intensity one: modeling the effect of an auditory or tactile nontarget stimulus on visual saccadic reaction time.
    Diederich A; Colonius H
    Brain Res; 2008 Nov; 1242():219-30. PubMed ID: 18573240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of visual-verbal load and spatial compatibility on stimulus response.
    Huang WS; Hsu CC; Liu CC; Lai CH
    Psychol Rep; 2011 Apr; 108(2):487-502. PubMed ID: 21675563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Role of practice and stimulus-onset-asynchrony in modulating effects of stimulus repetition, category relation, and response compatibility in the Eriksen flanker task.
    Zhang H
    Percept Mot Skills; 1997 Jun; 84(3 Pt 1):1087-96. PubMed ID: 9172226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Auditory warning signals affect mechanisms of response selection: evidence from a Simon task.
    Fischer R; Plessow F; Kiesel A
    Exp Psychol; 2010; 57(2):89-97. PubMed ID: 20178922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.