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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16933757)

  • 1. Object-based inhibitory priming in preview search: evidence from the "top-up" procedure.
    Kunar MA; Humphreys GW
    Mem Cognit; 2006 Apr; 34(3):459-74. PubMed ID: 16933757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Visual change with moving displays: more evidence for color feature map inhibition during preview search.
    Kunar MA; Humphreys GW; Smith KJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2003 Aug; 29(4):779-92. PubMed ID: 12967221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Inhibition and anticipation in visual search: evidence from effects of color foreknowledge on preview search.
    Braithwaite JJ; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Feb; 65(2):213-37. PubMed ID: 12713240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Out with the old: inhibition of old items in a preview search is limited.
    Emrich SM; Ruppel JD; Al-Aidroos N; Pratt J; Ferber S
    Percept Psychophys; 2008 Nov; 70(8):1552-7. PubMed ID: 19064497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A singleton distractor updates the inhibitory template for visual marking.
    Yamauchi K; Kawahara JI
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2019 Jan; 192():200-211. PubMed ID: 30530171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An analysis of the time course of attention in preview search.
    Humphreys GW; Stalmann BJ; Olivers C
    Percept Psychophys; 2004 Jul; 66(5):713-30. PubMed ID: 15495898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. When a reappearance is old news: visual marking survives occlusion.
    Kunar MA; Humphreys GW; Smith KJ; Watson DG
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2003 Feb; 29(1):185-98. PubMed ID: 12669757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The affective consequences of visual attention in preview search.
    Fenske MJ; Raymond JE; Kunar MA
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2004 Dec; 11(6):1055-61. PubMed ID: 15875975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Visual marking: the effects of irrelevant changes on preview search.
    Watson DG; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2005 Apr; 67(3):418-34. PubMed ID: 16119391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Flexible feature-based inhibition in visual search mediates magnified impairments of selection: evidence from carry-over effects under dynamic preview-search conditions.
    Andrews LS; Watson DG; Humphreys GW; Braithwaite JJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Aug; 37(4):1007-16. PubMed ID: 21553995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Visual working memory supports the inhibition of previously processed information: evidence from preview search.
    Al-Aidroos N; Emrich SM; Ferber S; Pratt J
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Jun; 38(3):643-63. PubMed ID: 21988363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. History matters: the preview benefit in search is not onset capture.
    Kunar MA; Humphreys GW; Smith KJ
    Psychol Sci; 2003 Mar; 14(2):181-5. PubMed ID: 12661682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Is it impossible to inhibit isoluminant items, or does it simply take longer? Evidence from preview search.
    Braithwaite JJ; Hulleman J; Watson DG; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2006 Feb; 68(2):290-300. PubMed ID: 16773900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Revisiting preview search at isoluminance: new onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage.
    Braithwaite JJ; Humphreys GW; Watson DG; Hulleman J
    Percept Psychophys; 2005 Oct; 67(7):1214-28. PubMed ID: 16502843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Parieto-occipital areas involved in efficient filtering in search: a time course analysis of visual marking using behavioural and functional imaging procedures.
    Humphreys GW; Kyllingsbaek S; Watson DG; Olivers CN; Law I; Paulson OB
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2004 May; 57(4):610-35. PubMed ID: 15204126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Electrophysiological correlates of active suppression and attentional selection in preview visual search.
    Berggren N; Eimer M
    Neuropsychologia; 2018 Nov; 120():75-85. PubMed ID: 30359651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Resisting change: the influence of luminance changes on visual marking and the preview benefit.
    Watson DG; Braithwaite JJ; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2008 Nov; 70(8):1526-39. PubMed ID: 19064495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Onset of background dynamic noise attenuates preview benefit in inefficient visual search.
    Osugi T; Murakami I
    Vision Res; 2015 Jul; 112():33-44. PubMed ID: 25976299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. What is "marked" in visual marking? Evidence for effects of configuration in preview search.
    Kunar MA; Humphreys GW; Smith KJ; Hulleman J
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Aug; 65(6):982-96. PubMed ID: 14528904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Selection of new objects by onset capture and visual marking.
    Osugi T; Hayashi D; Murakami I
    Vision Res; 2016 May; 122():21-33. PubMed ID: 27001341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.