138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20436195)
1. Spatial attention modulates feature crosstalk in visual word processing.
Risko EF; Stolz JA; Besner D
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 May; 72(4):989-98. PubMed ID: 20436195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interactive activation in visual word recognition: constraints imposed by the joint effects of spatial attention and semantics.
Stolz JA; Stevanovski B
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2004 Dec; 30(6):1064-76. PubMed ID: 15584815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Automaticity in reading and the Stroop task: testing the limits of involuntary word processing.
Brown TL; Joneleit K; Robinson CS; Brown CR
Am J Psychol; 2002; 115(4):515-43. PubMed ID: 12516527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Symbolic control of visual attention: semantic constraints on the spatial distribution of attention.
Gibson BS; Scheutz M; Davis GJ
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Feb; 71(2):363-74. PubMed ID: 19304625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Even frequent and expected words are not identified without spatial attention.
Lien MC; Ruthruff E; Kouchi S; Lachter J
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 May; 72(4):973-88. PubMed ID: 20436194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reading aloud: qualitative differences in the relation between stimulus quality and word frequency as a function of context.
O'Malley S; Besner D
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Nov; 34(6):1400-11. PubMed ID: 18980404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Parafoveal load of word N+1 modulates preprocessing effectiveness of word N+2 in Chinese reading.
Yan M; Kliegl R; Shu H; Pan J; Zhou X
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Dec; 36(6):1669-76. PubMed ID: 20731511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Do readers obtain preview benefit from word N + 2? A test of serial attention shift versus distributed lexical processing models of eye movement control in reading.
Rayner K; Juhasz BJ; Brown SJ
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Feb; 33(1):230-45. PubMed ID: 17311490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Endogenous versus exogenous attentional cuing effects on memory.
Hauer BJ; MacLeod CM
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2006 Jul; 122(3):305-20. PubMed ID: 16458848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Basic processes in reading: the effect of interletter spacing.
Risko EF; Lanthier SN; Besner D
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Nov; 37(6):1449-57. PubMed ID: 21787106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Exogenous attention differentially modulates the processing of categorical and coordinate spatial relations.
Okubo M; Laeng B; Saneyoshi A; Michimata C
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2010 Sep; 135(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 20441992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Neighborhood effects in reading aloud: new findings and new challenges for computational models.
Mulatti C; Reynolds MG; Besner D
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2006 Aug; 32(4):799-810. PubMed ID: 16846280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A multistream model of visual word recognition.
Allen PA; Smith AF; Lien MC; Kaut KP; Canfield A
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Feb; 71(2):281-96. PubMed ID: 19304618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dyslexics are impaired on implicit higher-order sequence learning, but not on implicit spatial context learning.
Howard JH; Howard DV; Japikse KC; Eden GF
Neuropsychologia; 2006; 44(7):1131-44. PubMed ID: 16313930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The frequency-predictability interaction in reading: it depends where you're coming from.
Hand CJ; Miellet S; O'Donnell PJ; Sereno SC
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Oct; 36(5):1294-313. PubMed ID: 20854004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. On the spatial metric of short-SOA costs of exogenous cuing.
Chen P; Moore C; Mordkoff JT
Am J Psychol; 2008; 121(2):229-40. PubMed ID: 18510134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effects of auditory and visual linguistic distractors on target localization.
Mayer AR; Kosson DS
Neuropsychology; 2004 Apr; 18(2):248-57. PubMed ID: 15099147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The role of spatial attention in visual word processing.
McCann RS; Folk CL; Johnston JC
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1992 Nov; 18(4):1015-29. PubMed ID: 1431741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Knowledge of word length does not constrain word identification.
Inhoff AW; Eiter BM
Psychol Res; 2003 Feb; 67(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 12589445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition.
Simpson GB
Psychol Bull; 1984 Sep; 96(2):316-40. PubMed ID: 6385046
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
