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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23106375)

  • 1. Two mechanisms of distractor dilution: visual selection in a continuous flow.
    Yeh YY; Lin SH
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Jun; 39(3):872-92. PubMed ID: 23106375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Selection history modulates the effects of dual mechanisms on flanker interference.
    Yeh YY; Lee SM; Chen YH; Chen Z
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Oct; 40(5):2038-55. PubMed ID: 25111666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Constraints on dilution from a narrow attentional zoom reveal how spatial and color cues direct selection.
    Chen Z; Cave KR
    Vision Res; 2014 Aug; 101():125-37. PubMed ID: 24973562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Qualitative differences in the guidance of attention during single-color and multiple-color visual search: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.
    Grubert A; Eimer M
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Oct; 39(5):1433-42. PubMed ID: 23244044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Top-down directed attention to stimulus features and attentional allocation to bottom-up deviations.
    Sawaki R; Katayama J
    J Vis; 2008 Nov; 8(15):4.1-8. PubMed ID: 19146288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Early and late modulation of saccade deviations by target distractor similarity.
    Mulckhuyse M; Van der Stigchel S; Theeuwes J
    J Neurophysiol; 2009 Sep; 102(3):1451-8. PubMed ID: 19553494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Target uncertainty does not lead to greater singleton distractor interference when target shapes are not interchangeable with nontarget shapes.
    Berry JH
    Vision Res; 2013 Mar; 80():31-40. PubMed ID: 23385060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Attentional control settings prevent abrupt onsets from capturing visual spatial attention.
    Al-Aidroos N; Harrison S; Pratt J
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Jan; 63(1):31-41. PubMed ID: 19728228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Top-down deactivation of interference from irrelevant spatial or verbal stimulus features.
    Frings C; Wühr P
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2014 Nov; 76(8):2360-74. PubMed ID: 24980154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Multisensory distractor processing is modulated by spatial attention.
    Merz S; Jensen A; Spence C; Frings C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Oct; 45(10):1375-1388. PubMed ID: 31343245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Top-down control of attention: it's gradual, practice-dependent, and hierarchically organized.
    Zehetleitner M; Goschy H; Müller HJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Aug; 38(4):941-57. PubMed ID: 22506778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Visual salience can co-exist with dilution during visual selection.
    Biggs AT; Gibson BS
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Feb; 40(1):7-14. PubMed ID: 23937214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Bottom-up and top-down control in visual search.
    van Zoest W; Donk M
    Perception; 2004; 33(8):927-37. PubMed ID: 15521692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Irrelevant singletons in visual search do not capture attention but can produce nonspatial filtering costs.
    Wykowska A; Schubö A
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 Mar; 23(3):645-60. PubMed ID: 19929330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. On the fate of distractor representations.
    Frings C; Wentura D; Wühr P
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Jun; 38(3):570-5. PubMed ID: 22428679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Identifying visual targets amongst interfering distractors: Sorting out the roles of perceptual load, dilution, and attentional zoom.
    Cave KR; Chen Z
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Oct; 78(7):1822-38. PubMed ID: 27250363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dilution, not load, affects distractor processing.
    Wilson DE; Muroi M; MacLeod CM
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Apr; 37(2):319-35. PubMed ID: 21299322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Top-down feature-based selection of matching features for audio-visual synchrony discrimination.
    Fujisaki W; Nishida S
    Neurosci Lett; 2008 Mar; 433(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 18281153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.