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.
113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17563218)
21. Visual search in temporally segregated displays: converging operations in the study of the preview benefit. Belopolsky AV; Peterson MS; Kramer AF Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2005 Aug; 24(3):453-66. PubMed ID: 16099358 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
24. 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]
25. Subset selective search on the basis of color and preview. Donk M Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Jan; 79(1):85-99. PubMed ID: 27663690 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Visual marking and facial affect: can an emotional face be ignored? Blagrove E; Watson DG Emotion; 2010 Apr; 10(2):147-68. PubMed ID: 20364892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Effects of task-irrelevant grouping on visual selection in partial report. Lunau R; Habekost T Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Jul; 79(5):1323-1335. PubMed ID: 28364367 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
37. 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]
38. Surface-based constraints on target selection and distractor rejection: evidence from preview search. Dent K; Humphreys GW; He X; Braithwaite JJ Vision Res; 2014 Apr; 97():89-99. PubMed ID: 24594000 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. An onset advantage without a preview benefit: neuropsychological evidence separating onset and preview effects in search. Humphreys GW; Olivers CN; Yoon EY J Cogn Neurosci; 2006 Jan; 18(1):110-20. PubMed ID: 16417687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Preview of partial stimulus information in search prioritizes features and conjunctions, not locations. Hannus A; Bekkering H; Cornelissen FW Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Jan; 82(1):140-152. PubMed ID: 31482279 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]