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.
3. Object representations maintain attentional control settings across space and time. Schreij D; Olivers CN Cognition; 2009 Oct; 113(1):111-6. PubMed ID: 19682674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The remains of the trial: goal-determined inter-trial suppression of selective attention. Lleras A; Levinthal BR; Kawahara J Prog Brain Res; 2009; 176():195-213. PubMed ID: 19733758 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Gist in time: Scene semantics and structure enhance recall of searched objects. Josephs EL; Draschkow D; Wolfe JM; Võ ML Acta Psychol (Amst); 2016 Sep; 169():100-108. PubMed ID: 27270227 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The role of memory and restricted context in repeated visual search. Kunar MA; Flusberg S; Wolfe JM Percept Psychophys; 2008 Feb; 70(2):314-28. PubMed ID: 18372752 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fortune and reversals of fortune in visual search: Reward contingencies for pop-out targets affect search efficiency and target repetition effects. Kristjánsson A; Sigurjónsdóttir O; Driver J Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Jul; 72(5):1229-36. PubMed ID: 20601703 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Novel popout is an attention-based phenomenon: an ERP analysis. Strayer DL; Johnston WA Percept Psychophys; 2000 Apr; 62(3):459-70. PubMed ID: 10909237 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Object-position binding in visual memory for natural scenes and object arrays. Hollingworth A J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Feb; 33(1):31-47. PubMed ID: 17311477 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prioritization in visual search: visual marking is not dependent on a mnemonic search. Olivers CN; Humphreys GW; Heinke D; Cooper AC Percept Psychophys; 2002 May; 64(4):540-60. PubMed ID: 12132757 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Sit-and-wait strategies in dynamic visual search. von Mühlenen A; Müller HJ; Müller D Psychol Sci; 2003 Jul; 14(4):309-14. PubMed ID: 12807402 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Temporal limitations in the effective binding of attended target attributes in the mutual masking of visual objects. Hommuk K; Bachmann T J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Jun; 35(3):648-60. PubMed ID: 19485683 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Should I stay or should I go? Attentional disengagement from visually unique and unexpected items at fixation. Brockmole JR; Boot WR J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Jun; 35(3):808-15. PubMed ID: 19485693 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Visual search and dual tasks reveal two distinct attentional resources. VanRullen R; Reddy L; Koch C J Cogn Neurosci; 2004; 16(1):4-14. PubMed ID: 15006031 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Does gravity matter? Effects of semantic and syntactic inconsistencies on the allocation of attention during scene perception. Võ ML; Henderson JM J Vis; 2009 Mar; 9(3):24.1-15. PubMed ID: 19757963 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Attentional capture by object appearance and disappearance. Cole GG; Kuhn G Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Jan; 63(1):147-59. PubMed ID: 19396733 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Do People "Pop Out"? Mayer KM; Vuong QC; Thornton IM PLoS One; 2015; 10(10):e0139618. PubMed ID: 26441221 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. You look familiar, but I don't care: Lure rejection in hybrid visual and memory search is not based on familiarity. Wolfe JM; Boettcher SE; Josephs EL; Cunningham CA; Drew T J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2015 Dec; 41(6):1576-87. PubMed ID: 26191615 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]