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.
25. Attentional capture does not depend on feature similarity, but on target-nontarget relations. Becker SI; Folk CL; Remington RW Psychol Sci; 2013 May; 24(5):634-47. PubMed ID: 23558547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Contingent capture is weakened in search for multiple features from different dimensions. Biderman D; Biderman N; Zivony A; Lamy D J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2017 Dec; 43(12):1974-1992. PubMed ID: 28425733 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Visual search within and across dimensions: a case for within-dimension grouping. Linnell KJ; Humphreys GW Br J Psychol; 2002 Feb; 93(Pt 1):115-35. PubMed ID: 11839104 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Electrophysiological correlates of detecting a visual target and detecting its absence: the role of feature dimensions. Akyürek EG; Dinkelbach A; Schubö A; Müller HJ Neuropsychologia; 2010 Sep; 48(11):3365-70. PubMed ID: 20633570 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Effect of task set-modulating attentional capture depends on the distractor cost in visual search: evidence from N2pc. Zhao D; Liang S; Jin Z; Li L Neuroreport; 2014 Jul; 25(10):737-42. PubMed ID: 24840929 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The role of within-dimension singleton priming in visual search. Lamy D; Bar-Anan Y; Egeth HE J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Apr; 34(2):268-85. PubMed ID: 18377170 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Multiple attentional sets while monitoring rapid serial visual presentations. Kawahara JI; Kumada T Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2017 Nov; 70(11):2271-2289. PubMed ID: 27603438 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Out of sight, out of mind: Matching bias underlies confirmatory visual search. Rajsic J; Taylor JE; Pratt J Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Feb; 79(2):498-507. PubMed ID: 28000157 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Independence is elusive: set size effects on encoding precision in visual search. Mazyar H; van den Berg R; Seilheimer RL; Ma WJ J Vis; 2013 Apr; 13(5):. PubMed ID: 23576114 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Top-down feature-based selection of matching features for audio-visual synchrony discrimination. Fujisaki W; Nishida S Neurosci Lett; 2008 Mar; 433(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 18281153 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Selective attention to specific features within objects: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Nobre AC; Rao A; Chelazzi L J Cogn Neurosci; 2006 Apr; 18(4):539-61. PubMed ID: 16768359 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Dimension- and space-based intertrial effects in visual pop-out search: modulation by task demands for focal-attentional processing. Krummenacher J; Müller HJ; Zehetleitner M; Geyer T Psychol Res; 2009 Mar; 73(2):186-97. PubMed ID: 19066948 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The remains of the trial: goal-determined inter-trial suppression of selective attention. Lleras A; Levinthal BR; Kawahara J Prog Brain Res; 2009; 176():195-213. PubMed ID: 19733758 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Value-driven attentional capture. Anderson BA; Laurent PA; Yantis S Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2011 Jun; 108(25):10367-71. PubMed ID: 21646524 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]