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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21507363)

  • 61. Automatic adjustment of visuomotor readiness.
    Song JH; Nakayama K
    J Vis; 2007 Mar; 7(5):2.1-9. PubMed ID: 18217842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Hand deviations away from visual cues: indirect evidence for inhibition.
    Howard LA; Tipper SP
    Exp Brain Res; 1997 Jan; 113(1):144-52. PubMed ID: 9028783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Knowing where is different from knowing what: Distinct response time profiles and accuracy effects for target location, orientation, and color probability.
    Jabar SB; Filipowicz A; Anderson B
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Nov; 79(8):2338-2353. PubMed ID: 28842834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Attentional capture for tool images is driven by the head end of the tool, not the handle.
    Skiba RM; Snow JC
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Nov; 78(8):2500-2514. PubMed ID: 27473377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. The same-location cost is unrelated to attentional settings: an object-updating account.
    Carmel T; Lamy D
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Aug; 40(4):1465-78. PubMed ID: 24730745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. The effect of attentional cueing on conscious awareness of stimulus and response.
    Johnson H; Haggard P
    Exp Brain Res; 2003 Jun; 150(4):490-6. PubMed ID: 12728292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Symbolic, non-directional predictive cues affect action execution.
    Swansburg JE; Neyedli HF
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2019 Oct; 81(7):2391-2399. PubMed ID: 31214972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Are tool properties always processed automatically? The role of tool use context and task complexity.
    Randerath J; Martin KR; Frey SH
    Cortex; 2013 Jun; 49(6):1679-93. PubMed ID: 23026760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. A meta-analysis of contingent-capture effects.
    Büsel C; Voracek M; Ansorge U
    Psychol Res; 2020 Apr; 84(3):784-809. PubMed ID: 30171425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Hand deviations toward distractors. Evidence for response competition.
    Welsh TN; Elliott D; Weeks DJ
    Exp Brain Res; 1999 Jul; 127(2):207-12. PubMed ID: 10442412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Goal-directed action is automatically biased towards looming motion.
    Moher J; Sit J; Song JH
    Vision Res; 2015 Aug; 113(Pt B):188-97. PubMed ID: 25159287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Is social inhibition of return due to action co-representation?
    Atkinson MA; Simpson A; Skarratt PA; Cole GG
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2014 Jul; 150():85-93. PubMed ID: 24859672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Visual attention amplifies response priming of pointing movements to color targets.
    Schmidt T; Seydell A
    Percept Psychophys; 2008 Apr; 70(3):443-55. PubMed ID: 18459255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Attentional capture in goal-directed action during childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood.
    Erb CD; Moher J; Marcovitch S
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2022 Feb; 214():105273. PubMed ID: 34509699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Application of virtual reality head mounted display for investigation of movement: a novel effect of orientation of attention.
    Quinlivan B; Butler JS; Beiser I; Williams L; McGovern E; O'Riordan S; Hutchinson M; Reilly RB
    J Neural Eng; 2016 Oct; 13(5):056006. PubMed ID: 27518212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Multiple attentional control settings influence late attentional selection but do not provide an early attentional filter.
    Adamo M; Pun C; Ferber S
    Cogn Neurosci; 2010 Jun; 1(2):102-10. PubMed ID: 24168276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Testing a priming account of the contingent-capture effect.
    Schoeberl T; Goller F; Ansorge U
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2019 Jul; 81(5):1262-1282. PubMed ID: 30820777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Nogo Stimuli Do Not Receive More Attentional Suppression or Response Inhibition than Neutral Stimuli: Evidence from the N2pc, PD, and N2 Components in a Spatial Cueing Paradigm.
    Barras C; Kerzel D
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():630. PubMed ID: 27199858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Top-down attentional factors modulate action priming in reach-to-grasp action.
    Sparks S; Lyons M; Kritikos A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Jul; 72(7):1589-1600. PubMed ID: 30282529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Catching of balls unexpectedly thrown or fired by cannon.
    Kenward B; Nilsson D
    Percept Mot Skills; 2011 Aug; 113(1):171-87. PubMed ID: 21987918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.