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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16502841)

  • 21. Event-related potentials reveal the effect of prior knowledge on competition for representation and attentional capture.
    Hilimire MR; Corballis PM
    Psychophysiology; 2014 Jan; 51(1):22-35. PubMed ID: 24147640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Target uncertainty does not lead to greater singleton distractor interference when target shapes are not interchangeable with nontarget shapes.
    Berry JH
    Vision Res; 2013 Mar; 80():31-40. PubMed ID: 23385060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Statistical learning of target and distractor spatial probability shape a common attentional priority computation.
    Ferrante O; Chelazzi L; Santandrea E
    Cortex; 2023 Dec; 169():95-117. PubMed ID: 37866062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Attentional selection by distractor suppression.
    Caputo G; Guerra S
    Vision Res; 1998 Mar; 38(5):669-89. PubMed ID: 9604099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Spatial suppression due to statistical regularities in a visual detection task.
    van Moorselaar D; Theeuwes J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2022 Feb; 84(2):450-458. PubMed ID: 34773244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Feature intertrial priming biases attentional priority: Evidence from the capture-probe paradigm.
    Wirth BE; Ramgir A; Lamy D
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2023 Aug; 49(8):1145-1157. PubMed ID: 37338430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Does a salient distractor capture attention early in processing?
    Lamy D; Tsal Y; Egeth HE
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2003 Sep; 10(3):621-9. PubMed ID: 14620356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Learning to ignore salient color distractors during serial search: evidence for experience-dependent attention allocation strategies.
    Biggs AT; Gibson BS
    Front Psychol; 2013; 4():326. PubMed ID: 23801969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Distinct roles of the intraparietal sulcus and temporoparietal junction in attentional capture from distractor features: An individual differences approach.
    Painter DR; Dux PE; Mattingley JB
    Neuropsychologia; 2015 Jul; 74():50-62. PubMed ID: 25724234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Polarity-dependent Effects of Biparietal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Interplay between Target Location and Distractor Saliency in Visual Attention.
    Chechlacz M; Hansen PC; Geng JJ; Cazzoli D
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2018 Jun; 30(6):851-866. PubMed ID: 29393718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Target uncertainty does not lead to more distraction by singletons: intertrial priming does.
    Pinto Y; Olivers CN; Theeuwes J
    Percept Psychophys; 2005 Nov; 67(8):1354-61. PubMed ID: 16555587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Attentional capture is contingent on the interaction between task demand and stimulus salience.
    Lu S; Han S
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Jul; 71(5):1015-26. PubMed ID: 19525534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Distractor's salience does not determine feature suppression: A commentary on Wang and Theeuwes (2020).
    Ramgir A; Lamy D
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2023 Jun; 49(6):852-861. PubMed ID: 37276124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. On the relationship between flanker interference and localized attentional interference.
    McCarley JS; Mounts JR
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 May; 128(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 18155179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Distractor probability changes the shape of the attentional template.
    Geng JJ; DiQuattro NE; Helm J
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2017 Dec; 43(12):1993-2007. PubMed ID: 28425732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Feature-based statistical regularities of distractors modulate attentional capture.
    Stilwell BT; Bahle B; Vecera SP
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Mar; 45(3):419-433. PubMed ID: 30802131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture independent of search strategy.
    Wang B; Theeuwes J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2018 Oct; 80(7):1763-1774. PubMed ID: 29968080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Spatial suppression due to statistical learning tracks the estimated spatial probability.
    Lin R; Li X; Wang B; Theeuwes J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2021 Jan; 83(1):283-291. PubMed ID: 33078381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Evidence inhibition responds reactively to the salience of distracting information during focused attention.
    Wyatt N; Machado L
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(4):e62809. PubMed ID: 23646147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.