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.
43. Distractor interference in focused attention tasks is not mediated by attention capture. Gronau N; Cohen A; Ben-Shakhar G Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Sep; 62(9):1685-95. PubMed ID: 19382007 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Can intertrial priming account for the similarity effect in visual search? Becker SI; Ansorge U; Horstmann G Vision Res; 2009 Jul; 49(14):1738-56. PubMed ID: 19358862 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Dimension-based working memory-driven capture of visual selection. Pan Y; Xu B; Soto D Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Jun; 62(6):1123-31. PubMed ID: 19142832 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. The role of target-distractor relationships in guiding attention and the eyes in visual search. Becker SI J Exp Psychol Gen; 2010 May; 139(2):247-65. PubMed ID: 20438251 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Novelty and saliency in attentional capture by unannounced motion singletons. Becker SI; Horstmann G Acta Psychol (Amst); 2011 Mar; 136(3):290-9. PubMed ID: 21208608 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Target-nontarget similarity decreases search efficiency and increases stimulus-driven control in visual search. Barras C; Kerzel D Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Oct; 79(7):2037-2043. PubMed ID: 28681179 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Attentional capture by a perceptually salient non-target facilitates target processing through inhibition and rapid rejection. Geng JJ; Diquattro NE J Vis; 2010 Jun; 10(6):5. PubMed ID: 20884554 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Effects of memory load on visual search. Gil-Gómez de Liaño B; Botella J Psicothema; 2010 Nov; 22(4):725-31. PubMed ID: 21044505 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Previous attentional set can induce an attentional blink with task-irrelevant initial targets. Thompson C; Underwood G; Crundall D Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Dec; 60(12):1603-9. PubMed ID: 17853197 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. The time it takes to turn a memory into a template. Wilschut A; Theeuwes J; Olivers CN J Vis; 2013 Apr; 13(3):. PubMed ID: 23603144 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Location and color biases have different influences on selective attention. Fecteau JH; Korjoukov I; Roelfsema PR Vision Res; 2009 May; 49(9):996-1005. PubMed ID: 19324066 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. A search order lost effect: ignoring a singleton distractor affects visual search efficiency. Kumada T Vision Res; 2010 Jun; 50(14):1402-13. PubMed ID: 20025896 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. 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]
57. Competition for representation is mediated by relative attentional salience. Mounts JR; Tomaselli RG Acta Psychol (Amst); 2005 Mar; 118(3):261-75. PubMed ID: 15698824 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. On the difference between working memory and attentional set. Olivers CN; Eimer M Neuropsychologia; 2011 May; 49(6):1553-8. PubMed ID: 21145332 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Learning by selection: visual search and object perception in young infants. Amso D; Johnson SP Dev Psychol; 2006 Nov; 42(6):1236-45. PubMed ID: 17087555 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]