160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19827702)
1. Reversed effects of spatial compatibility in natural scenes.
Müsseler J; Aschersleben G; Arning K; Proctor RW
Am J Psychol; 2009; 122(3):325-36. PubMed ID: 19827702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects.
Dittrich K; Rothe A; Klauer KC
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2012 Jul; 74(5):911-29. PubMed ID: 22528612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Stimulus-response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment.
Yamaguchi M; Proctor RW
J Exp Psychol Appl; 2006 Dec; 12(4):207-22. PubMed ID: 17154770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Hazard perception as a function of target location and the field of view.
Shahar A; Alberti CF; Clarke D; Crundall D
Accid Anal Prev; 2010 Nov; 42(6):1577-84. PubMed ID: 20728606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Shared learning shapes human performance: Transfer effects in task sharing.
Milanese N; Iani C; Rubichi S
Cognition; 2010 Jul; 116(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 20381024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of visual-verbal load and spatial compatibility on stimulus response.
Huang WS; Hsu CC; Liu CC; Lai CH
Psychol Rep; 2011 Apr; 108(2):487-502. PubMed ID: 21675563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects.
Vu KP; Proctor RW
Q J Exp Psychol A; 2004 Apr; 57(3):539-56. PubMed ID: 15204140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Anticipatory response control in motor sequence learning: evidence from stimulus-response compatibility.
Koch I
Hum Mov Sci; 2007 Apr; 26(2):257-74. PubMed ID: 17346838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Proprioception and stimulus-response compatibility.
Worringham CJ; Kerr GK
Q J Exp Psychol A; 2000 Feb; 53(1):69-83. PubMed ID: 10718064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Precueing spatial S-R correspondence: is there regulation of expected response conflict?
Wühr P; Kunde W
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Aug; 34(4):872-83. PubMed ID: 18665732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Hand to mouth: automatic imitation across effector systems.
Leighton J; Heyes C
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Oct; 36(5):1174-83. PubMed ID: 20731510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of preparatory schema on the speed of responses to spatially compatible and incompatible stimuli.
Jennings JR; van der Molen MW; Van der Veen FM; Debski KB
Psychophysiology; 2002 Jul; 39(4):496-504. PubMed ID: 12212642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Responding to object files: automatic integration of spatial information revealed by stimulus-response compatibility effects.
Hommel B
Q J Exp Psychol A; 2002 Apr; 55(2):567-80. PubMed ID: 12047059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of response eccentricity and relative position on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility with joystick and keypress responses.
Proctor RW; Cho YS
Q J Exp Psychol A; 2003 Feb; 56(2):309-27. PubMed ID: 12613566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference.
Shin YK; Proctor RW
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Nov; 129(3):352-64. PubMed ID: 18845280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Body- and environmental-stabilized processing of spatial knowledge.
Mou W; Li X; McNamara TP
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Mar; 34(2):415-21. PubMed ID: 18315416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Thinking outside the body: an advantage for spatial updating during imagined versus physical self-rotation.
Wraga M
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Sep; 29(5):993-1005. PubMed ID: 14516230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effects of inverting natural stimuli in a flanker task.
Wells IC; Hamm JP
Can J Exp Psychol; 2009 Mar; 63(1):33-9. PubMed ID: 19271814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Planning keypress and reaching responses: effects of response location and number of potential effectors.
Adam JJ; Taminiau B; van Veen N; Ament B; Rijcken JM; Meijer K; Pratt J
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Dec; 34(6):1464-78. PubMed ID: 19045986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Automatic imitation of intransitive actions.
Press C; Bird G; Walsh E; Heyes C
Brain Cogn; 2008 Jun; 67(1):44-50. PubMed ID: 18077067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
