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 *

245 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14528898)

  • 1. Attentional focus, processing load, and Stroop interference.
    Chen Z
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Aug; 65(6):888-900. PubMed ID: 14528898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dilution, not load, affects distractor processing.
    Wilson DE; Muroi M; MacLeod CM
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Apr; 37(2):319-35. PubMed ID: 21299322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Zooming in on the cause of the perceptual load effect in the go/no-go paradigm.
    Chen Z; Cave KR
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2016 Aug; 42(8):1072-87. PubMed ID: 26820251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Perceptual load modulates the processing of distractors presented at task-irrelevant locations during the attentional blink.
    Elliott JC; Giesbrecht B
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Nov; 72(8):2106-14. PubMed ID: 21097855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The role of perceptual load in processing distractor faces.
    Lavie N; Ro T; Russell C
    Psychol Sci; 2003 Sep; 14(5):510-5. PubMed ID: 12930485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention.
    Benoni H; Tsal Y
    Vision Res; 2010 Jun; 50(13):1292-8. PubMed ID: 20430048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Active inhibition of a distractor word: the distractor precue benefit in the Stroop color-naming task.
    Chao HF
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Jun; 37(3):799-812. PubMed ID: 21480743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention.
    Lavie N; de Fockert JW
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Feb; 65(2):202-12. PubMed ID: 12713239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Depth cues do not underlie attentional modulations of the Stroop effect.
    Wühr P; Weltle M
    Mem Cognit; 2005 Jun; 33(4):676-80. PubMed ID: 16248332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Irrelevant onsets cause inhibition of return regardless of attentional set.
    Schreij D; Theeuwes J; Olivers CN
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Oct; 72(7):1725-9. PubMed ID: 20952771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of distractor load and temporal target-distractor separation on numerical comparison performance: a stimulus-competition approach.
    Paas F; Adam JJ
    Psychol Rep; 2002 Jun; 90(3 Pt 1):889-906. PubMed ID: 12090526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Object-based attention overrides perceptual load to modulate visual distraction.
    Cosman JD; Vecera SP
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Jun; 38(3):576-9. PubMed ID: 22390296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A case for inhibition: visual attention suppresses the processing of irrelevant objects.
    Wühr P; Frings C
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2008 Feb; 137(1):116-30. PubMed ID: 18248132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Opening the window: Size of the attentional window dominates perceptual load and familiarity in visual selection.
    Biggs AT; Gibson BS
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2018 Nov; 44(11):1780-1798. PubMed ID: 30247049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Distractor interference in focused attention tasks is not mediated by attention capture.
    Gronau N; Cohen A; Ben-Shakhar G
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Sep; 62(9):1685-95. PubMed ID: 19382007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Processing overlap-dependent distractor dilution rather than perceptual target load determines attentional selectivity.
    Tan J; Yin S; Wang L; Chen A; Egner T
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2018 Nov; 80(8):2048-2059. PubMed ID: 29968079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Stroop dilution revisited: evidence for domain-specific, limited-capacity processing.
    Roberts MA; Besner D
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2005 Feb; 31(1):3-13. PubMed ID: 15709859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Identifying visual targets amongst interfering distractors: Sorting out the roles of perceptual load, dilution, and attentional zoom.
    Cave KR; Chen Z
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Oct; 78(7):1822-38. PubMed ID: 27250363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Inhibition is picky: shape difference is a necessary condition for attentional inhibition of irrelevant objects.
    Wühr P; Frings C
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2009 Oct; 16(5):839-44. PubMed ID: 19815786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The influence of relevant and irrelevant stereoscopic depth cues: Depth information does not always capture attention.
    Plewan T; Rinkenauer G
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2018 Nov; 80(8):1996-2007. PubMed ID: 30030691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.