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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19962396)

  • 1. Priming resolves perceptual ambiguity in visual search: evidence from behaviour and electrophysiology.
    Olivers CN; Hickey C
    Vision Res; 2010 Jun; 50(14):1362-71. PubMed ID: 19962396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Feature priming and the capture of visual attention: linking two ambiguity resolution hypotheses.
    Hickey C; Olivers C; Meeter M; Theeuwes J
    Brain Res; 2011 Jan; 1370():175-84. PubMed ID: 21078309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Electrophysiological evidence of semantic interference in visual search.
    Telling AL; Kumar S; Meyer AS; Humphreys GW
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2010 Oct; 22(10):2212-25. PubMed ID: 19803680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Intertrial target-feature changes do not lead to more distraction by singletons: target uncertainty does.
    Lamy D; Yashar A
    Vision Res; 2008 May; 48(10):1274-9. PubMed ID: 18395767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Can intertrial priming account for the similarity effect in visual search?
    Becker SI; Ansorge U; Horstmann G
    Vision Res; 2009 Jul; 49(14):1738-56. PubMed ID: 19358862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A search order lost effect: ignoring a singleton distractor affects visual search efficiency.
    Kumada T
    Vision Res; 2010 Jun; 50(14):1402-13. PubMed ID: 20025896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Repetition of distractor sets improves visual search performance in hemispatial neglect.
    Saevarsson S; Jóelsdóttir S; Hjaltason H; Kristjánsson A
    Neuropsychologia; 2008 Mar; 46(4):1161-9. PubMed ID: 18068736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Stimulus intensity affects the latency but not the amplitude of the N2pc.
    Brisson B; Robitaille N; Jolicoeur P
    Neuroreport; 2007 Oct; 18(15):1627-30. PubMed ID: 17885614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Irrelevant singletons in visual search do not capture attention but can produce nonspatial filtering costs.
    Wykowska A; Schubö A
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 Mar; 23(3):645-60. PubMed ID: 19929330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A feature-weighting account of priming in conjunction search.
    Becker SI; Horstmann G
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Feb; 71(2):258-72. PubMed ID: 19304616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Levels of visuo-spatial selection: an ERP study of negative priming.
    Gibbons H; Wiegleb N; Stahl J
    Brain Cogn; 2013 Nov; 83(2):203-17. PubMed ID: 24056236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Electrophysiological correlates of visual identity negative priming.
    Frings C; Groh-Bordin C
    Brain Res; 2007 Oct; 1176():82-91. PubMed ID: 17904111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Tracking target and distractor processing in fixed-feature visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology.
    Jannati A; Gaspar JM; McDonald JJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Dec; 39(6):1713-30. PubMed ID: 23527999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. On the electrophysiological evidence for the capture of visual attention.
    McDonald JJ; Green JJ; Jannati A; Di Lollo V
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Jun; 39(3):849-60. PubMed ID: 23163789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Selecting and ignoring salient objects within and across dimensions in visual search.
    Schubö A; Müller HJ
    Brain Res; 2009 Aug; 1283():84-101. PubMed ID: 19501066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Attentional capture during visual search is attenuated by target predictability: evidence from the N2pc, Pd, and topographic segmentation.
    Burra N; Kerzel D
    Psychophysiology; 2013 May; 50(5):422-30. PubMed ID: 23418888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Target resolution in visual search involves the direct suppression of distractors: evidence from electrophysiology.
    Hilimire MR; Hickey C; Corballis PM
    Psychophysiology; 2012 Apr; 49(4):504-9. PubMed ID: 22176697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Where has all the inhibition gone? Insights from electrophysiological measures into negative priming without probe distractors.
    Groh-Bordin C; Frings C
    Brain Cogn; 2009 Nov; 71(2):92-8. PubMed ID: 19619926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.