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 *

307 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15490135)

  • 21. Optimal and preferred eye landing positions in objects and scenes.
    Foulsham T; Kingstone A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013 Sep; 66(9):1707-28. PubMed ID: 23398283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Crossmodal enhancement in the LOC for visuohaptic object recognition over development.
    Jao RJ; James TW; James KH
    Neuropsychologia; 2015 Oct; 77():76-89. PubMed ID: 26272239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Characteristics of eye movements in 3-D object learning: comparison between within-modal and cross-modal object recognition.
    Ueda Y; Saiki J
    Perception; 2012; 41(11):1289-98. PubMed ID: 23513616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Canonical views in haptic object perception.
    Woods AT; Moore A; Newell FN
    Perception; 2008; 37(12):1867-78. PubMed ID: 19227377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Spatial scene representations formed by self-organizing learning in a hippocampal extension of the ventral visual system.
    Rolls ET; Tromans JM; Stringer SM
    Eur J Neurosci; 2008 Nov; 28(10):2116-27. PubMed ID: 19046392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Similarity and categorization: from vision to touch.
    Gaissert N; Bülthoff HH; Wallraven C
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2011 Sep; 138(1):219-30. PubMed ID: 21752344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Intrinsic frames of reference and egocentric viewpoints in scene recognition.
    Mou W; Fan Y; McNamara TP; Owen CB
    Cognition; 2008 Feb; 106(2):750-69. PubMed ID: 17540353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Size-sensitive perceptual representations underlie visual and haptic object recognition.
    Craddock M; Lawson R
    PLoS One; 2009 Nov; 4(11):e8009. PubMed ID: 19956685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The role of the anterior intraparietal sulcus in crossmodal processing of object features in humans: an rTMS study.
    Buelte D; Meister IG; Staedtgen M; Dambeck N; Sparing R; Grefkes C; Boroojerdi B
    Brain Res; 2008 Jun; 1217():110-8. PubMed ID: 18501339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Differential effects of non-informative vision and visual interference on haptic spatial processing.
    Volcic R; van Rheede JJ; Postma A; Kappers AM
    Exp Brain Res; 2008 Sep; 190(1):31-41. PubMed ID: 18553074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Visuo-haptic integration in object identification using novel objects.
    Desmarais G; Meade M; Wells T; Nadeau M
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Nov; 79(8):2478-2498. PubMed ID: 28744702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Congruency effect of presentation modality on false recognition of haptic and visual objects.
    Nabeta T; Kawahara J
    Memory; 2006 Apr; 14(3):307-15. PubMed ID: 16574587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The effect of visuo-haptic congruency on haptic spatial matching.
    Kaas AL; van Mier HI; Lataster J; Fingal M; Sack AT
    Exp Brain Res; 2007 Oct; 183(1):75-85. PubMed ID: 17624519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Roughness perception of unfamiliar dot pattern textures.
    Eck J; Kaas AL; Mulders JL; Goebel R
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2013 May; 143(1):20-34. PubMed ID: 23500111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. View combination: a generalization mechanism for visual recognition.
    Friedman A; Waller D; Thrash T; Greenauer N; Hodgson E
    Cognition; 2011 May; 119(2):229-41. PubMed ID: 21334606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The effects of interference on recognition of haptic pictures in blindfolded sighted participants: the modality of representation of haptic information.
    Holtby RC; D'Angiulli A
    Scand J Psychol; 2012 Apr; 53(2):112-8. PubMed ID: 22251003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Static images of novel, moveable objects learned through touch activate visual area hMT+.
    Chan JS; Simões-Franklin C; Garavan H; Newell FN
    Neuroimage; 2010 Jan; 49(2):1708-16. PubMed ID: 19815082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Updating representations of learned scenes.
    Finlay CA; Motes MA; Kozhevnikov M
    Psychol Res; 2007 May; 71(3):265-76. PubMed ID: 17051399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Vision and touch: multiple or multisensory representations of objects?
    Lacey S; Campbell C; Sathian K
    Perception; 2007; 36(10):1513-21. PubMed ID: 18265834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Development of visuo-haptic transfer for object recognition in typical preschool and school-aged children.
    Purpura G; Cioni G; Tinelli F
    Child Neuropsychol; 2018 Jul; 24(5):657-670. PubMed ID: 28427295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.