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 *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16441199)

  • 1. The combination of vision and touch depends on spatial proximity.
    Gepshtein S; Burge J; Ernst MO; Banks MS
    J Vis; 2005 Dec; 5(11):1013-23. PubMed ID: 16441199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Optimal visual-haptic integration with articulated tools.
    Takahashi C; Watt SJ
    Exp Brain Res; 2017 May; 235(5):1361-1373. PubMed ID: 28214998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Optimal integration of shape information from vision and touch.
    Helbig HB; Ernst MO
    Exp Brain Res; 2007 Jun; 179(4):595-606. PubMed ID: 17225091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Solid shape discrimination from vision and haptics: natural objects (Capsicum annuum) and Gibson's "feelies".
    Norman JF; Phillips F; Holmin JS; Norman HF; Beers AM; Boswell AM; Cheeseman JR; Stethen AG; Ronning C
    Exp Brain Res; 2012 Oct; 222(3):321-32. PubMed ID: 22918607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception.
    Gepshtein S; Banks MS
    Curr Biol; 2003 Mar; 13(6):483-8. PubMed ID: 12646130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Integration of vision and haptics during tool use.
    Takahashi C; Diedrichsen J; Watt SJ
    J Vis; 2009 Jun; 9(6):3.1-13. PubMed ID: 19761294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Noninformative vision improves haptic spatial perception.
    Newport R; Rabb B; Jackson SR
    Curr Biol; 2002 Oct; 12(19):1661-4. PubMed ID: 12361568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch.
    Ernst MO
    J Vis; 2007 Jun; 7(5):7.1-14. PubMed ID: 18217847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Transfer of object category knowledge across visual and haptic modalities: experimental and computational studies.
    Yildirim I; Jacobs RA
    Cognition; 2013 Feb; 126(2):135-48. PubMed ID: 23102553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dynamic and predictive links between touch and vision.
    Gray R; Tan HZ
    Exp Brain Res; 2002 Jul; 145(1):50-5. PubMed ID: 12070744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An event-related brain potential study of cross-modal links in spatial attention between vision and touch.
    Eimer M; Driver J
    Psychophysiology; 2000 Sep; 37(5):697-705. PubMed ID: 11037046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion.
    Ernst MO; Banks MS
    Nature; 2002 Jan; 415(6870):429-33. PubMed ID: 11807554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Response interference in touch, vision, and crossmodally: beyond the spatial dimension.
    Mast F; Frings C; Spence C
    Exp Brain Res; 2014 Jul; 232(7):2325-36. PubMed ID: 24728130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Object and spatial imagery dimensions in visuo-haptic representations.
    Lacey S; Lin JB; Sathian K
    Exp Brain Res; 2011 Sep; 213(2-3):267-73. PubMed ID: 21424255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Categorizing natural objects: a comparison of the visual and the haptic modalities.
    Gaissert N; Wallraven C
    Exp Brain Res; 2012 Jan; 216(1):123-34. PubMed ID: 22048319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Functional equivalence of spatial images from touch and vision: evidence from spatial updating in blind and sighted individuals.
    Giudice NA; Betty MR; Loomis JM
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 May; 37(3):621-34. PubMed ID: 21299331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Predicted sensory feedback derived from motor commands does not improve haptic sensitivity.
    Sciutti A; Squeri V; Gori M; Masia L; Sandini G; Konczak J
    Exp Brain Res; 2010 Jan; 200(3-4):259-67. PubMed ID: 19730840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.