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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20580269)

  • 1. A high-loaded hemisphere successfully ignores distractors.
    Nishimura R; Yoshizaki K
    Conscious Cogn; 2010 Dec; 19(4):953-61. PubMed ID: 20580269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Goal-driven selective attention in patients with right hemisphere lesions: how intact is the ipsilesional field?
    Snow JC; Mattingley JB
    Brain; 2006 Jan; 129(Pt 1):168-81. PubMed ID: 16317021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Effect of task difficulty on hemispheric differences in visual image processing].
    Hildebrandt H; Fresenborg I; Engel A
    Z Exp Psychol; 1995; 42(2):256-79. PubMed ID: 7497072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Visual field asymmetries in selective attention: evidence from a modified search paradigm.
    Michael GA; Ojéda N
    Neurosci Lett; 2005 Nov; 388(2):65-70. PubMed ID: 16026928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Size scaling and spatial factors in visual attention.
    Goolkasian P
    Am J Psychol; 1997; 110(3):397-415. PubMed ID: 9339537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Steady-state signatures of visual perceptual load, multimodal distractor filtering, and neural competition.
    Parks NA; Hilimire MR; Corballis PM
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 May; 23(5):1113-24. PubMed ID: 20146614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Dilution of compatibility effects in Simon-type tasks depends on categorical similarity between distractors and diluters.
    Miles JD; Yamaguchi M; Proctor RW
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Oct; 71(7):1598-606. PubMed ID: 19801619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Vision and touch in ageing: crossmodal selective attention and visuotactile spatial interactions.
    Poliakoff E; Ashworth S; Lowe C; Spence C
    Neuropsychologia; 2006; 44(4):507-17. PubMed ID: 16098997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Selective attention and interhemispheric response competition in the split-brain.
    Lambert A; Naikar N
    Brain Cogn; 2000 Dec; 44(3):511-46. PubMed ID: 11104540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Dopamine receptor (DRD2) genotype-dependent effects of nicotine on attention and distraction during rapid visual information processing.
    Gilbert DG; Izetelny A; Radtke R; Hammersley J; Rabinovich NE; Jameson TR; Huggenvik JI
    Nicotine Tob Res; 2005 Jun; 7(3):361-79. PubMed ID: 16085504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Electrophysiological evidence of the capture of visual attention.
    Hickey C; McDonald JJ; Theeuwes J
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2006 Apr; 18(4):604-13. PubMed ID: 16768363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Task-relevance modulates the effects of peripheral distractors.
    Lichtenstein-Vidne L; Henik A; Safadi Z
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Sep; 60(9):1216-26. PubMed ID: 17676554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. From reorienting of attention to biased competition: evidence from hemifield effects.
    Mathôt S; Hickey C; Theeuwes J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Apr; 72(3):651-7. PubMed ID: 20348571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A right visual field advantage for tool-recognition in the visual half-field paradigm.
    Verma A; Brysbaert M
    Neuropsychologia; 2011 Jul; 49(9):2342-8. PubMed ID: 21527265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Central perceptual load does not reduce ipsilesional flanker interference in parietal extinction.
    Snow JC; Mattingley JB
    Neuropsychology; 2008 May; 22(3):371-82. PubMed ID: 18444715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The direction of hemispheric asymmetries for object categorization at different levels of abstraction depends on the task.
    Studer T; Hübner R
    Brain Cogn; 2008 Jul; 67(2):197-211. PubMed ID: 18308442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Hemisphere specialization of Go experts in visuospatial processing.
    Hatta T; Kogure T; Kawakami A
    Am J Psychol; 1999; 112(4):571-84. PubMed ID: 10696267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluating a split fovea model of visual word recognition: effects of case alternation in the two visual fields and in the left and right halves of words presented at the fovea.
    Ellis AW; Brooks J; Lavidor M
    Neuropsychologia; 2005; 43(8):1128-37. PubMed ID: 15817170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.