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 *

207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15982133)

  • 1. Look here but ignore what you see: effects of distractors at fixation.
    Beck DM; Lavie N
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2005 Jun; 31(3):592-607. PubMed ID: 15982133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Gaze perception requires focused attention: evidence from an interference task.
    Burton AM; Bindemann M; Langton SR; Schweinberger SR; Jenkins R
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Feb; 35(1):108-18. PubMed ID: 19170474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set.
    Müller HJ; Geyer T; Zehetleitner M; Krummenacher J
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Feb; 35(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 19170466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Time-course of feature-based top-down control in saccadic distractor effects.
    Born S; Kerzel D
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Dec; 37(6):1689-99. PubMed ID: 21688943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Attention selection, distractor suppression and N2pc.
    Mazza V; Turatto M; Caramazza A
    Cortex; 2009; 45(7):879-90. PubMed ID: 19084218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Eye cannot see it: the interference of subliminal distractors on saccade metrics.
    Van der Stigchel S; Mulckhuyse M; Theeuwes J
    Vision Res; 2009 Jul; 49(16):2104-9. PubMed ID: 19500616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Influence of foveal distractors on saccadic eye movements: a dead zone for the global effect.
    Vitu F; Lancelin D; Jean A; Farioli F
    Vision Res; 2006 Dec; 46(28):4684-708. PubMed ID: 17049960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Focal distraction: spatial shifts of attentional focus are not required for contingent capture.
    Ghorashi SM; Zuvic SM; Visser TA; Di Lollo V
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2003 Feb; 29(1):78-91. PubMed ID: 12669749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: effects of word length.
    Jordan TR; Paterson KB; Stachurski M
    Cortex; 2009 Apr; 45(4):495-505. PubMed ID: 19231478
    [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. Temporal dissociation between distractors and targets: the impact of residual distractor processing on target responses.
    Kritikos A; McNeill J; Pavlis A
    J Mot Behav; 2008 Jan; 40(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 18316295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Response selection in visual search: the influence of response compatibility of nontargets.
    Starreveld PA; Theeuwes J; Mortier K
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2004 Feb; 30(1):56-78. PubMed ID: 14769068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Congruency effects in the remote distractor paradigm: evidence for top-down modulation.
    Born S; Kerzel D
    J Vis; 2009 Aug; 9(9):3.1-13. PubMed ID: 19761336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of perceptual and motor decisions via confidence judgments and saccade curvature.
    Cardoso-Leite P; Gorea A
    J Neurophysiol; 2009 Jun; 101(6):2822-36. PubMed ID: 19261707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. When does visual attention select all features of a distractor?
    Chen Z; Cave KR
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2006 Dec; 32(6):1452-64. PubMed ID: 17154784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Can intertrial priming account for the similarity effect in visual search?
    Becker SI; Ansorge U; Horstmann G
    Vision Res; 2009 Jul; 49(14):1738-56. PubMed ID: 19358862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A new look at novelty effects: guiding search away from old distractors.
    Yang H; Chen X; Zelinsky GJ
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Apr; 71(3):554-64. PubMed ID: 19304646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of distractor variation on auditory selective attention.
    Tong Y; Melara RD
    Brain Res; 2007 Aug; 1166():110-23. PubMed ID: 17669371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task.
    Verbruggen F; Liefooghe B; Vandierendonck A
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2004 May; 116(1):21-37. PubMed ID: 15111228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.