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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25111666)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Opening the window: Size of the attentional window dominates perceptual load and familiarity in visual selection.
    Biggs AT; Gibson BS
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2018 Nov; 44(11):1780-1798. PubMed ID: 30247049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Zooming in on the cause of the perceptual load effect in the go/no-go paradigm.
    Chen Z; Cave KR
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2016 Aug; 42(8):1072-87. PubMed ID: 26820251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. When vision influences the invisible distractor: tactile response compatibility effects require vision.
    Wesslein AK; Spence C; Frings C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Apr; 40(2):763-74. PubMed ID: 24245501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effects of working memory contents and perceptual load on distractor processing: When a response-related distractor is held in working memory.
    Koshino H
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2017 Jan; 172():19-25. PubMed ID: 27838400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Opposite effects of capacity load and resolution load on distractor processing.
    Zhang W; Luck SJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2015 Feb; 41(1):22-7. PubMed ID: 25365573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Overt spatial attention modulates multisensory selection.
    Jensen A; Merz S; Spence C; Frings C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Feb; 45(2):174-188. PubMed ID: 30589358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Tracking target and distractor processing in fixed-feature visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology.
    Jannati A; Gaspar JM; McDonald JJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Dec; 39(6):1713-30. PubMed ID: 23527999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Distance and ratio effects in the flanker task are due to different mechanisms.
    Mattler U
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2006 Oct; 59(10):1745-63. PubMed ID: 16945858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Perceptual target discriminability modulates the Simon effect beyond the fading of distractor-based activation: Insights from delta plots and diffusion model analyses.
    Ellinghaus R; Liepelt R; Mackenzie IG; Mittelstädt V
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2024 Aug; 50(8):842-858. PubMed ID: 38900524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Target-to-distractor ratio effects on decision time in the orderly array shape cancellation task.
    Nakajima Y; Ikeda Y; Okuzumi H
    Psychol Rep; 2013 Oct; 113(2):353-61. PubMed ID: 24597434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Inhibition of irrelevant response codes is affected by matching target-distractor modalities.
    Möller M; Mayr S; Buchner A
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Feb; 45(2):189-208. PubMed ID: 30589356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of spatial distribution of attention during inhibition of return (IOR) on flanker interference in hearing and congenitally deaf people.
    Chen Q; Zhang M; Zhou X
    Brain Res; 2006 Sep; 1109(1):117-27. PubMed ID: 16859649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Flanker negative priming from spatially unpredictable primes: an ERP study.
    Gibbons H; Frings C
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2010 Mar; 75(3):339-48. PubMed ID: 20079389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Spatial proximity as a determinant of context-specific attentional settings.
    Diede NT; Bugg JM
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Jul; 78(5):1255-66. PubMed ID: 26984752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Time course of spatial contextual interference: event history analyses of simultaneous masking by nonoverlapping patterns.
    Panis S; Hermens F
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Feb; 40(1):129-44. PubMed ID: 23713795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Perceptual load corresponds with factors known to influence visual search.
    Roper ZJ; Cosman JD; Vecera SP
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Oct; 39(5):1340-51. PubMed ID: 23398258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.