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.
152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19064486)
1. Does training under consistent mapping conditions lead to automatic attention attraction to targets in search tasks? Lefebvre C; Cousineau D; Larochelle S Percept Psychophys; 2008 Nov; 70(8):1401-15. PubMed ID: 19064486 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Automatization and training in visual search. Czerwinski M; Lightfoot N; Shiffrin RM Am J Psychol; 1992; 105(2):271-315. PubMed ID: 1621883 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Consistent mapping and automatic visual search: comparing persons with and without intellectual disability. Merrill EC J Intellect Disabil Res; 2004 Nov; 48(Pt 8):746-53. PubMed ID: 15494064 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Feature integration theory revisited: dissociating feature detection and attentional guidance in visual search. Chan LK; Hayward WG J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Feb; 35(1):119-32. PubMed ID: 19170475 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Emotional devaluation of distracting patterns and faces: a consequence of attentional inhibition during visual search? Raymond JE; Fenske MJ; Westoby N J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2005 Dec; 31(6):1404-15. PubMed ID: 16366798 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. When is search for a static target among dynamic distractors efficient? Pinto Y; Olivers CN; Theeuwes J J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2006 Feb; 32(1):59-72. PubMed ID: 16478326 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Measuring search efficiency in complex visual search tasks: global and local clutter. Beck MR; Lohrenz MC; Trafton JG J Exp Psychol Appl; 2010 Sep; 16(3):238-50. PubMed ID: 20853984 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search. Menneer T; Donnelly N; Godwin HJ; Cave KR J Exp Psychol Appl; 2010 Jun; 16(2):133-44. PubMed ID: 20565198 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Do honeybees detect colour targets using serial or parallel visual search? Spaethe J; Tautz J; Chittka L J Exp Biol; 2006 Mar; 209(Pt 6):987-93. PubMed ID: 16513924 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The cost of search for multiple targets: effects of practice and target similarity. Menneer T; Cave KR; Donnelly N J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Jun; 15(2):125-39. PubMed ID: 19586251 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An inter-item similarity model unifying feature and conjunction search. Phillips S; Takeda Y; Kumada T Vision Res; 2006 Oct; 46(22):3867-80. PubMed ID: 16920177 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Response selection in visual search: the influence of response compatibility of nontargets. Starreveld PA; Theeuwes J; Mortier K J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2004 Feb; 30(1):56-78. PubMed ID: 14769068 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Revisiting the category effect: the influence of meaning and search strategy on the efficiency of visual search. Smilek D; Dixon MJ; Merikle PM Brain Res; 2006 Mar; 1080(1):73-90. PubMed ID: 16510131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]