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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23145265)

  • 1. Aesthetic preference for spatial composition in multiobject pictures.
    Leyssen MH; Linsen S; Sammartino J; Palmer SE
    Iperception; 2012; 3(1):25-49. PubMed ID: 23145265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of Implied Motion and Facing Direction on Positional Preferences in Single-Object Pictures.
    Palmer SE; Langlois TA
    Perception; 2017 Jul; 46(7):815-829. PubMed ID: 28622756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: effects of position and direction on framing single objects.
    Palmer SE; Gardner JS; Wickens TD
    Spat Vis; 2008; 21(3-5):421-49. PubMed ID: 18534113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Seeing and liking: biased perception of ambiguous figures consistent with the "inward bias" in aesthetic preferences.
    Chen YC; Scholl BJ
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2014 Dec; 21(6):1444-51. PubMed ID: 24683097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Aesthetic preferences in the size of images of real-world objects.
    Linsen S; Leyssen MH; Sammartino J; Palmer SE
    Perception; 2011; 40(3):291-8. PubMed ID: 21692420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Linking "what" and "where" information: How the strength of object categories influences children's memory for object locations.
    Plumert JM; Franzen LJ; Mathews MM; Violante C
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2017 May; 157():95-110. PubMed ID: 28131068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: effects of vertical position and perspective on framing single objects.
    Sammartino J; Palmer SE
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Aug; 38(4):865-79. PubMed ID: 22428674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An electrophysiological investigation of semantic priming with pictures of real objects.
    McPherson WB; Holcomb PJ
    Psychophysiology; 1999 Jan; 36(1):53-65. PubMed ID: 10098380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dynamic stimuli: accentuating aesthetic preference biases.
    Friedrich TE; Harms VL; Elias LJ
    Laterality; 2014; 19(5):549-59. PubMed ID: 24527986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Multiple perceptual distortions and their modulation in leftsided visual neglect.
    Kerkhoff G
    Neuropsychologia; 2000; 38(7):1073-86. PubMed ID: 10775717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Teaching Object-Picture Matching to Improve Concordance between Object and Picture Preferences for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: Pilot Study.
    Nguyen DM; Yu CT; Martin TL; Fregeau P; Pogorzelec C; Martin GL
    J Dev Disabl; 2009; 15(1):53-64. PubMed ID: 23538383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The center cannot hold: Variations of frame width help to explain the "inward bias" in aesthetic preferences.
    Forman IR; Chen YC; Scholl BJ; Alvarez GA
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2021 Jul; 83(5):2151-2158. PubMed ID: 33811279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Object location memory: integration and competition between multiple context objects but not between observers' body and context objects.
    Mou W; Spetch ML
    Cognition; 2013 Feb; 126(2):181-97. PubMed ID: 23142038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Enhanced visual exploration for real objects compared to pictures during free viewing in the macaque monkey.
    Mustafar F; De Luna P; Rainer G
    Behav Processes; 2015 Sep; 118():8-20. PubMed ID: 26003135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Selecting object pairs for action: Is the active object always first?
    Laverick R; Wulff M; Honisch JJ; Chua WL; Wing AM; Rotshtein P
    Exp Brain Res; 2015 Aug; 233(8):2269-81. PubMed ID: 25929555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Aesthetic appeal is no coincidence: Preference for generic over specific viewpoints.
    Anderson AJ; Amarasekara P; Yashasvi Kumar N; Victoria Liapis G; Pal S; Singh P; Lee Williams J
    Vision Res; 2022 Aug; 197():108051. PubMed ID: 35428018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of Objective Measures for Predicting Perceptual Balance and Visual Aesthetic Preference.
    Hübner R; Fillinger MG
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():335. PubMed ID: 27014143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. There is more to the picture than meets the rat: a study on rodent geometric shape and proportion preferences.
    Winne J; Teixeira L; de Andrade Pessoa J; Gavioli EC; Soares-Rachetti V; André E; Lobão-Soares B
    Behav Brain Res; 2015 May; 284():187-95. PubMed ID: 25698599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The distribution of attention within objects in multiple-object scenes: prioritization by spatial probabilities and a center bias.
    Feria CS
    Percept Psychophys; 2008 Oct; 70(7):1185-96. PubMed ID: 18927002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Visual angle as a determinant of perceived interobject distance.
    Levin CA; Haber RN
    Percept Psychophys; 1993 Aug; 54(2):250-9. PubMed ID: 8361840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.