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 *

225 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20873940)

  • 1. How do selected arrows guide visuospatial attention? Dissociating symbolic value and spatial proximity.
    Leblanc E; Jolicoeur P
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Oct; 36(5):1314-20. PubMed ID: 20873940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Visuospatial attention is guided by both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of selected arrows.
    Pratt J; Radulescu P; Guo RM; Hommel B
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Oct; 36(5):1321-4. PubMed ID: 20873941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Orienting of attention with eye and arrow cues and the effect of overtraining.
    Guzzon D; Brignani D; Miniussi C; Marzi CA
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2010 Jul; 134(3):353-62. PubMed ID: 20421095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The functional role of alternation advantage in the sequence effect of symbolic cueing with nonpredictive arrow cues.
    Qian Q; Song M; Shinomori K; Wang F
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2012 Oct; 74(7):1430-6. PubMed ID: 22718205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Symbolic control of attention: tracking its temporal dynamics.
    Hommel B; Akyürek EG
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Feb; 71(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 19304627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The neural correlates of attention orienting in visuospatial working memory for detecting feature and conjunction changes.
    Yeh YY; Kuo BC; Liu HL
    Brain Res; 2007 Jan; 1130(1):146-57. PubMed ID: 17173876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Eye gaze versus arrows as spatial cues: two qualitatively different modes of attentional selection.
    Marotta A; Lupiáñez J; Martella D; Casagrande M
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Apr; 38(2):326-35. PubMed ID: 21688940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Visuospatial attention shifts by gaze and arrow cues: an ERP study.
    Hietanen JK; Leppänen JM; Nummenmaa L; Astikainen P
    Brain Res; 2008 Jun; 1215():123-36. PubMed ID: 18485332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. On the generality of the contingent orienting hypothesis.
    Yeh SL; Liao HI
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):157-65. PubMed ID: 18614130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The role of relational information in contingent capture.
    Becker SI; Folk CL; Remington RW
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Dec; 36(6):1460-76. PubMed ID: 20919781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cueing the location of a distractor: an inhibitory mechanism of spatial attention?
    Munneke J; Van der Stigchel S; Theeuwes J
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):101-7. PubMed ID: 18589391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Is location cueing inherently superior to color cueing? Not if color is presented early enough.
    Kasten R; Navon D
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Jan; 127(1):89-102. PubMed ID: 17420002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings.
    Folk CL; Remington RW; Johnston JC
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1992 Nov; 18(4):1030-44. PubMed ID: 1431742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Symbolic control of visual attention: The role of working memory and attentional control settings.
    Pratt J; Hommel B
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2003 Oct; 29(5):835-45. PubMed ID: 14585008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Attentional orienting induced by arrows and eye-gaze compared with an endogenous cue.
    Brignani D; Guzzon D; Marzi CA; Miniussi C
    Neuropsychologia; 2009 Jan; 47(2):370-81. PubMed ID: 18926835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Neurobehavioral correlates of the rapid formation of the symbolic control of visuospatial attention.
    Trujillo LT; Schnyer DM
    Psychophysiology; 2011 Sep; 48(9):1227-41. PubMed ID: 21446995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How attentional systems process conflicting cues. The superiority of social over symbolic orienting revisited.
    Nummenmaa L; Hietanen JK
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Dec; 35(6):1738-54. PubMed ID: 19968432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A facilitative effect of negative affective valence on working memory.
    Gotoh F; Kikuchi T; Olofsson U
    Scand J Psychol; 2010 Jun; 51(3):185-91. PubMed ID: 20132459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Measuring effects of voluntary attention: a comparison among predictive arrow, colour, and number cues.
    Olk B; Tsankova E; Petca AR; Wilhelm AF
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2014 Oct; 67(10):2025-41. PubMed ID: 24697668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.