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 *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20846773)

  • 21. The modulation of perceptual selection by working memory is dependent on the focus of spatial attention.
    Pan Y; Soto D
    Vision Res; 2010 Jul; 50(15):1437-44. PubMed ID: 19883679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The development of non-spatial working memory capacity during childhood and adolescence and the role of interference control: an N-Back task study.
    Schleepen TM; Jonkman LM
    Dev Neuropsychol; 2010; 35(1):37-56. PubMed ID: 20390591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Parametric manipulation of working memory load in traumatic brain injury: behavioral and neural correlates.
    Perlstein WM; Cole MA; Demery JA; Seignourel PJ; Dixit NK; Larson MJ; Briggs RW
    J Int Neuropsychol Soc; 2004 Sep; 10(5):724-41. PubMed ID: 15327720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Diluting the burden of load: perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects.
    Tsal Y; Benoni H
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Dec; 36(6):1645-56. PubMed ID: 20822300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Consolidation of multifeature items in visual working memory: central capacity requirements for visual consolidation.
    Stevanovski B; Jolicœur P
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2011 May; 73(4):1108-19. PubMed ID: 21327744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The influence of increased working memory load on semantic neural systems: a high-resolution event-related brain potential study.
    D'Arcy RC; Service E; Connolly JF; Hawco CS
    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2005 Feb; 22(2):177-91. PubMed ID: 15653292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Distractor P3 is associated with attentional capture by stimulus deviance.
    Sawaki R; Katayama J
    Clin Neurophysiol; 2008 Jun; 119(6):1300-9. PubMed ID: 18411071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Perceptual load interacts with stimulus processing across sensory modalities.
    Klemen J; Büchel C; Rose M
    Eur J Neurosci; 2009 Jun; 29(12):2426-34. PubMed ID: 19490081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Cognitive load modulates attentional capture by color singletons during effortful visual search.
    Burnham BR
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2010 Sep; 135(1):50-8. PubMed ID: 20510910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Selective interference on the holistic processing of faces in working memory.
    Cheung OS; Gauthier I
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Apr; 36(2):448-61. PubMed ID: 20364929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Lateralized contribution of prefrontal cortex in controlling task-irrelevant information during verbal and spatial working memory tasks: rTMS evidence.
    Sandrini M; Rossini PM; Miniussi C
    Neuropsychologia; 2008; 46(7):2056-63. PubMed ID: 18336847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention.
    Benoni H; Tsal Y
    Vision Res; 2010 Jun; 50(13):1292-8. PubMed ID: 20430048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. On altering motion perception via working memory-based attention shifts.
    Turatto M; Vescovi M; Valsecchi M
    J Vis; 2008 May; 8(5):11.1-13. PubMed ID: 18842082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. No negative priming without cognitive control.
    de Fockert JW; Mizon GA; D'Ubaldo M
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Dec; 36(6):1333-41. PubMed ID: 20854003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. What drives memory-driven attentional capture? The effects of memory type, display type, and search type.
    Olivers CN
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Oct; 35(5):1275-91. PubMed ID: 19803636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Aging and cognitive slowing: example of attentional processes--evaluation procedures and related questions].
    Eusop E; Sebban C; Piette F
    Encephale; 2001; 27(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 11294037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. N250r ERP repetition effects from distractor faces when attending to another face under load: Evidence for a face attention resource.
    Neumann MF; Schweinberger SR
    Brain Res; 2009 May; 1270():64-77. PubMed ID: 19306855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Processing of multisensory spatial congruency can be dissociated from working memory and visuo-spatial attention.
    Zimmer U; Macaluso E
    Eur J Neurosci; 2007 Sep; 26(6):1681-91. PubMed ID: 17880400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction.
    Kim SY; Kim MS; Chun MM
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2005 Nov; 102(45):16524-9. PubMed ID: 16258067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.