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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23398259)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Prioritizing new elements with a brief preview period: evidence against visual marking.
    Donk M; Verburg RC
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2004 Apr; 11(2):282-8. PubMed ID: 15260194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Resisting change: the influence of luminance changes on visual marking and the preview benefit.
    Watson DG; Braithwaite JJ; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2008 Nov; 70(8):1526-39. PubMed ID: 19064495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Revisiting preview search at isoluminance: new onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage.
    Braithwaite JJ; Humphreys GW; Watson DG; Hulleman J
    Percept Psychophys; 2005 Oct; 67(7):1214-28. PubMed ID: 16502843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Visual search in temporally segregated displays: converging operations in the study of the preview benefit.
    Belopolsky AV; Peterson MS; Kramer AF
    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2005 Aug; 24(3):453-66. PubMed ID: 16099358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Perceptual grouping constrains inhibition in time-based visual selection.
    Zupan Z; Watson DG
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Feb; 82(2):500-517. PubMed ID: 31875319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Visual marking: the effects of irrelevant changes on preview search.
    Watson DG; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2005 Apr; 67(3):418-34. PubMed ID: 16119391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A computational model of visual marking using an inter-connected network of spiking neurons: the spiking search over time & space model (sSoTS).
    Mavritsaki E; Heinke D; Humphreys GW; Deco G
    J Physiol Paris; 2006; 100(1-3):110-24. PubMed ID: 17071061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Out with the old: inhibition of old items in a preview search is limited.
    Emrich SM; Ruppel JD; Al-Aidroos N; Pratt J; Ferber S
    Percept Psychophys; 2008 Nov; 70(8):1552-7. PubMed ID: 19064497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Prioritizing selection of new elements: bottom-up versus top-down control.
    Donk M; Theeuwes J
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Nov; 65(8):1231-42. PubMed ID: 14710958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effects of luminance change in preview search: offsets and onsets can be concurrently prioritized but not in isolation.
    Donk M; Agter F; Pratt J
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2009 Mar; 130(3):260-7. PubMed ID: 19261261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Visual marking: selective attention to asynchronous temporal groups.
    Jiang Y; Chun MM; Marks LE
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2002 Jun; 28(3):717-30. PubMed ID: 12075898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Microsaccade directions do not predict directionality of illusory brightness changes of overlapping transparent surfaces.
    Tse PU; Caplovitz GP; Hsieh PJ
    Vision Res; 2006 Oct; 46(22):3823-30. PubMed ID: 16934310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Is it impossible to inhibit isoluminant items, or does it simply take longer? Evidence from preview search.
    Braithwaite JJ; Hulleman J; Watson DG; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2006 Feb; 68(2):290-300. PubMed ID: 16773900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Attentional set protects visual marking from visual transients.
    Osugi T; Kawahara JI
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013; 66(1):69-90. PubMed ID: 22834464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Visual marking: evidence for inhibition using a probe-dot detection paradigm.
    Watson DG; Humphreys GW
    Percept Psychophys; 2000 Apr; 62(3):471-81. PubMed ID: 10909238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. On the time course of bottom-up and top-down processes in selective visual attention: an EEG study.
    Schneider D; Beste C; Wascher E
    Psychophysiology; 2012 Nov; 49(11):1492-1503. PubMed ID: 22978270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Visual marking in moving displays: feature-based inhibition is not necessary.
    Watson DG
    Percept Psychophys; 2001 Jan; 63(1):74-84. PubMed ID: 11304018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.