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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22004197)

  • 1. Determining the capacity of time-based selection.
    Watson DG; Kunar MA
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Apr; 38(2):350-66. PubMed ID: 22004197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Visual marking and change blindness: moving occluders and transient masks neutralize shape changes to ignored objects.
    Watson DG; Kunar MA
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Dec; 36(6):1391-405. PubMed ID: 20853998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Visual marking: the influence of temporary changes on time-based visual selection.
    Watson DG; Compton S; Bailey H
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Dec; 37(6):1729-38. PubMed ID: 21517208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Blink and you won't miss it: the preview benefit in visual marking survives internally generated eyeblinks.
    von Mühlenen A; Watson D; Gunnell DO
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Oct; 39(5):1279-90. PubMed ID: 23398259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Flexible feature-based inhibition in visual search mediates magnified impairments of selection: evidence from carry-over effects under dynamic preview-search conditions.
    Andrews LS; Watson DG; Humphreys GW; Braithwaite JJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Aug; 37(4):1007-16. PubMed ID: 21553995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The influence of action on visual search: behavioral response toward stimuli modifies the selection process.
    Buttaccio DR; Hahn S
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2011 Jul; 73(5):1453-66. PubMed ID: 21491163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measuring the interrelations among multiple paradigms of visual attention: an individual differences approach.
    Huang L; Mo L; Li Y
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Apr; 38(2):414-28. PubMed ID: 22250865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects.
    Watson DG; Humphreys GW
    Psychol Rev; 1997 Jan; 104(1):90-122. PubMed ID: 9009881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Visual marking and facial affect: can an emotional face be ignored?
    Blagrove E; Watson DG
    Emotion; 2010 Apr; 10(2):147-68. PubMed ID: 20364892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Negative attentional set in the attentional blink: control is not lost.
    Zhang D; Zhou X; Martens S
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2011 Nov; 73(8):2489-501. PubMed ID: 21901571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. A feature-weighting account of priming in conjunction search.
    Becker SI; Horstmann G
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Feb; 71(2):258-72. PubMed ID: 19304616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Distinguishing different strategies of across-dimension attentional selection.
    Huang L; Pashler H
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Apr; 38(2):453-64. PubMed ID: 22201466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Involuntary transfer of a top-down attentional set into the focus of attention: evidence from a contingent attentional capture paradigm.
    Moore KS; Weissman DH
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Aug; 72(6):1495-509. PubMed ID: 20675796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The remains of the trial: goal-determined inter-trial suppression of selective attention.
    Lleras A; Levinthal BR; Kawahara J
    Prog Brain Res; 2009; 176():195-213. PubMed ID: 19733758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Recently inhibited responses are avoided for both masked and nonmasked primes in a spatial negative priming task.
    Fitzgeorge L; Buckolz E; Khan M
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2011 Jul; 73(5):1435-52. PubMed ID: 21479723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Inhibition in time-based visual selection: Strategic or by default?
    Zupan Z; Watson DG; Blagrove E
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2015 Oct; 41(5):1442-61. PubMed ID: 26168141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Selection of new objects by onset capture and visual marking.
    Osugi T; Hayashi D; Murakami I
    Vision Res; 2016 May; 122():21-33. PubMed ID: 27001341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Object-based control of attention is sensitive to recent experience.
    Lee H; Mozer MC; Kramer AF; Vecera SP
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Apr; 38(2):314-25. PubMed ID: 21967274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.