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: 12852934)

  • 1. Visual marking inhibits singleton capture.
    Olivers CN; Humphreys GW
    Cogn Psychol; 2003 Aug; 47(1):1-42. PubMed ID: 12852934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Visual marking: the effects of irrelevant changes on preview search.
    Watson DG; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2005 Apr; 67(3):418-34. PubMed ID: 16119391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A singleton distractor updates the inhibitory template for visual marking.
    Yamauchi K; Kawahara JI
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2019 Jan; 192():200-211. PubMed ID: 30530171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Flexible feature-based inhibition in visual search mediates magnified impairments of selection: evidence from carry-over effects under dynamic preview-search conditions.
    Andrews LS; Watson DG; Humphreys GW; Braithwaite JJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Aug; 37(4):1007-16. PubMed ID: 21553995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A search order lost effect: ignoring a singleton distractor affects visual search efficiency.
    Kumada T
    Vision Res; 2010 Jun; 50(14):1402-13. PubMed ID: 20025896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Spatial filtering restricts the attentional window during both singleton and feature-based visual search.
    Berggren N; Eimer M
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Jul; 82(5):2360-2378. PubMed ID: 31993978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Selection of new objects by onset capture and visual marking.
    Osugi T; Hayashi D; Murakami I
    Vision Res; 2016 May; 122():21-33. PubMed ID: 27001341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. No previews are good news: using preview search to probe categorical grouping for orientation.
    Hodsoll JP; Humphreys GW
    Vision Res; 2007 May; 47(11):1464-78. PubMed ID: 17433399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Temporal Binding and Segmentation in Visual Search: A Computational Neuroscience Analysis.
    Mavritsaki E; Humphreys G
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2016 Oct; 28(10):1553-67. PubMed ID: 27243617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Attentional capture by abrupt onsets and feature singletons produces inhibitory surrounds.
    Mounts JR
    Percept Psychophys; 2000 Oct; 62(7):1485-93. PubMed ID: 11143458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Inhibition and anticipation in visual search: evidence from effects of color foreknowledge on preview search.
    Braithwaite JJ; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Feb; 65(2):213-37. PubMed ID: 12713240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The preview benefit in single-feature and conjunction search: Constraints of visual marking.
    Meinhardt G; Persike M
    J Vis; 2015; 15(13):13. PubMed ID: 26382004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Target uncertainty does not lead to greater singleton distractor interference when target shapes are not interchangeable with nontarget shapes.
    Berry JH
    Vision Res; 2013 Mar; 80():31-40. PubMed ID: 23385060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Attentional control during visual search: the effect of irrelevant singletons.
    Theeuwes J; Burger R
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1998 Oct; 24(5):1342-53. PubMed ID: 9778827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Irrelevant singletons in visual search do not capture attention but can produce nonspatial filtering costs.
    Wykowska A; Schubö A
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 Mar; 23(3):645-60. PubMed ID: 19929330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Attentional capture in singleton-detection and feature-search modes.
    Lamy D; Egeth HE
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2003 Oct; 29(5):1003-20. PubMed ID: 14585019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Active suppression of salient-but-irrelevant stimuli does not underlie resistance to visual interference.
    Barras C; Kerzel D
    Biol Psychol; 2016 Dec; 121(Pt A):74-83. PubMed ID: 27756581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Visual marking: a convergence of goal- and stimulus-driven processes during visual search.
    Atchley P; Jones SE; Hoffman L
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Jul; 65(5):667-77. PubMed ID: 12956576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An onset advantage without a preview benefit: neuropsychological evidence separating onset and preview effects in search.
    Humphreys GW; Olivers CN; Yoon EY
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2006 Jan; 18(1):110-20. PubMed ID: 16417687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Determining the capacity of time-based selection.
    Watson DG; Kunar MA
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Apr; 38(2):350-66. PubMed ID: 22004197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.