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 *

769 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18510441)

  • 1. Difficulty of discrimination modulates attentional capture by regulating attentional focus.
    Sawaki R; Katayama J
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2009 Feb; 21(2):359-71. PubMed ID: 18510441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Difficulty of discrimination modulates attentional capture for deviant information.
    Sawaki R; Katayama J
    Psychophysiology; 2007 May; 44(3):374-82. PubMed ID: 17433096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Distractor P3 is associated with attentional capture by stimulus deviance.
    Sawaki R; Katayama J
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2008 Jun; 119(6):1300-9. PubMed ID: 18411071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Stimulus context determines whether non-target stimuli are processed as task-relevant or distractor information.
    Sawaki R; Katayama J
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2006 Nov; 117(11):2532-9. PubMed ID: 17005448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evidence for the auditory P3a reflecting an automatic process: elicitation during highly-focused continuous visual attention.
    Muller-Gass A; Macdonald M; Schröger E; Sculthorpe L; Campbell K
    Brain Res; 2007 Sep; 1170():71-8. PubMed ID: 17692834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. P3a from visual stimuli: task difficulty effects.
    Hagen GF; Gatherwright JR; Lopez BA; Polich J
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2006 Jan; 59(1):8-14. PubMed ID: 16253363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Increased visual task difficulty enhances attentional capture by both visual and auditory distractor stimuli.
    Sugimoto F; Katayama J
    Brain Res; 2017 Jun; 1664():55-62. PubMed ID: 28377160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Voluntary stimulus production enhances deviance processing in the brain.
    Nittono H
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2006 Jan; 59(1):15-21. PubMed ID: 16257077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Tracking the location of visuospatial attention in a contingent capture paradigm.
    Leblanc E; Prime DJ; Jolicoeur P
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2008 Apr; 20(4):657-71. PubMed ID: 18052780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Attentional systems in target and distractor processing: a combined ERP and fMRI study.
    Bledowski C; Prvulovic D; Goebel R; Zanella FE; Linden DE
    Neuroimage; 2004 Jun; 22(2):530-40. PubMed ID: 15193581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Underlying mechanisms of the P3a task-difficulty effect.
    Kimura M; Katayama J; Murohashi H
    Psychophysiology; 2008 Sep; 45(5):731-41. PubMed ID: 18665864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Contingent capture of visual-spatial attention depends on capacity-limited central mechanisms: evidence from human electrophysiology and the psychological refractory period.
    Brisson B; Leblanc E; Jolicoeur P
    Biol Psychol; 2009 Feb; 80(2):218-25. PubMed ID: 19000734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Can subitizing survive the attentional blink? An ERP study.
    Xu X; Liu C
    Neurosci Lett; 2008 Aug; 440(2):140-4. PubMed ID: 18556118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Distractor interference in focused attention tasks is not mediated by attention capture.
    Gronau N; Cohen A; Ben-Shakhar G
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Sep; 62(9):1685-95. PubMed ID: 19382007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The impact of negative attentional set upon target processing in RSVP: an ERP study.
    Zhang D; Zhou X; Martens S
    Neuropsychologia; 2009 Oct; 47(12):2604-14. PubMed ID: 19465037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of feature-selective and spatial attention at different stages of visual processing.
    Andersen SK; Fuchs S; Müller MM
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 Jan; 23(1):238-46. PubMed ID: 19702461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Attentional control settings prevent abrupt onsets from capturing visual spatial attention.
    Al-Aidroos N; Harrison S; Pratt J
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Jan; 63(1):31-41. PubMed ID: 19728228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Perceptual load affects spatial and nonspatial visual selection processes: an event-related brain potential study.
    Barnhardt J; Ritter W; Gomes H
    Neuropsychologia; 2008; 46(7):2071-8. PubMed ID: 18355882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Electrophysiological indices of target and distractor processing in visual search.
    Hickey C; Di Lollo V; McDonald JJ
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2009 Apr; 21(4):760-75. PubMed ID: 18564048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of visuospatial attentional load on the processing of irrelevant acoustic distractors.
    Zhang P; Chen X; Yuan P; Zhang D; He S
    Neuroimage; 2006 Nov; 33(2):715-24. PubMed ID: 16956775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 39.