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 *

226 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16262499)

  • 1. How much attention does an event file need?
    Hommel B
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2005 Oct; 31(5):1067-82. PubMed ID: 16262499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Auditory event files: integrating auditory perception and action planning.
    Zmigrod S; Hommel B
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Feb; 71(2):352-62. PubMed ID: 19304624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Determinants of the benefit for consistent stimulus-response mappings in dual-task performance of four-choice tasks.
    Proctor RW; Vu KP
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 May; 71(4):734-56. PubMed ID: 19429956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Hands up: attentional prioritization of space near the hand.
    Reed CL; Grubb JD; Steele C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2006 Feb; 32(1):166-77. PubMed ID: 16478334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On the generality of the contingent orienting hypothesis.
    Yeh SL; Liao HI
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):157-65. PubMed ID: 18614130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Action-induced effects on perception depend neither on element-level nor on set-level similarity between stimulus and response sets.
    Wykowska A; Hommel B; Schubö A
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2011 May; 73(4):1034-41. PubMed ID: 21472508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Planning keypress and reaching responses: effects of response location and number of potential effectors.
    Adam JJ; Taminiau B; van Veen N; Ament B; Rijcken JM; Meijer K; Pratt J
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Dec; 34(6):1464-78. PubMed ID: 19045986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An effect of spatial-temporal association of response codes: understanding the cognitive representations of time.
    Vallesi A; Binns MA; Shallice T
    Cognition; 2008 May; 107(2):501-27. PubMed ID: 18076872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Implicit task sets in task switching?
    Dreisbach G; Goschke T; Haider H
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Nov; 32(6):1221-33. PubMed ID: 17087579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Demands on attention and the role of response priming in visual discrimination of feature conjunctions.
    Fournier LR; Herbert RJ; Farris C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2004 Oct; 30(5):836-52. PubMed ID: 15462624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Multisensory cues capture spatial attention regardless of perceptual load.
    Santangelo V; Spence C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Dec; 33(6):1311-21. PubMed ID: 18085945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of stimulus features and instruction on response coding, selection, and inhibition: evidence from repetition effects under task switching.
    Druey MD; Hübner R
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2008 Oct; 61(10):1573-600. PubMed ID: 18777444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Time course of the Simon effect in pointing movements for horizontal, vertical, and acoustic stimuli: evidence for a common mechanism.
    Buetti S; Kerzel D
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Nov; 129(3):420-8. PubMed ID: 18930170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Attentional changes during implicit learning: signal validity protects a target stimulus from the attentional blink.
    Livesey EJ; Harris IM; Harris JA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 Mar; 35(2):408-22. PubMed ID: 19271855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effective time course of preparation.
    Los SA; Schut ML
    Cogn Psychol; 2008 Aug; 57(1):20-55. PubMed ID: 18255052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Response specific temporal expectancy: evidence from a variable foreperiod paradigm.
    Thomaschke R; Kiesel A; Hoffmann J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2011 Oct; 73(7):2309-22. PubMed ID: 21755419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Precueing spatial S-R correspondence: is there regulation of expected response conflict?
    Wühr P; Kunde W
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Aug; 34(4):872-83. PubMed ID: 18665732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Visual determinants of a cross-modal illusion.
    Armontrout JA; Schutz M; Kubovy M
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Oct; 71(7):1618-27. PubMed ID: 19801621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Inhibition of return in subliminal letter priming.
    Marzouki Y; Grainger J; Theeuwes J
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):112-20. PubMed ID: 18582840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Determinants of the benefit for consistent spatial mappings in dual-task performance of three-choice tasks.
    Proctor RW; Vu KP
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Nov; 71(8):1771-81. PubMed ID: 19933561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.