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 *

214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25328998)

  • 1. The impact of the irrelevant: the task environment modulates the impact of irrelevant features in response selection.
    Mast F; Frings C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Dec; 40(6):2198-213. PubMed ID: 25328998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Multisensory top-down sets: Evidence for contingent crossmodal capture.
    Mast F; Frings C; Spence C
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2015 Aug; 77(6):1970-85. PubMed ID: 25944449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Attentional selection of objects or features: evidence from a modified search task.
    Mounts JR; Melara RD
    Percept Psychophys; 1999 Feb; 61(2):322-41. PubMed ID: 10089764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Simultaneous priming along multiple feature dimensions in a visual search task.
    Kristjánsson A
    Vision Res; 2006 Aug; 46(16):2554-70. PubMed ID: 16527323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Goal-driven modulation as a function of time in saccadic target selection.
    van Zoest W; Donk M
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2008 Oct; 61(10):1553-72. PubMed ID: 17926227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Investigating attentional control sets: Evidence for the compilation of multi-feature control sets.
    Merz S; Beege F; Schöpper LM; Spence C; Frings C
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2023 Apr; 85(3):596-612. PubMed ID: 36229630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Dilution of compatibility effects in Simon-type tasks depends on categorical similarity between distractors and diluters.
    Miles JD; Yamaguchi M; Proctor RW
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Oct; 71(7):1598-606. PubMed ID: 19801619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Involuntary transfer of a top-down attentional set into the focus of attention: evidence from a contingent attentional capture paradigm.
    Moore KS; Weissman DH
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Aug; 72(6):1495-509. PubMed ID: 20675796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. What is top-down about contingent capture?
    Belopolsky AV; Schreij D; Theeuwes J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 Feb; 72(2):326-41. PubMed ID: 20139449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mechanisms of priming of pop-out: Stored representations or feature-gain modulations?
    Lee H; Mozer MC; Vecera SP
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Jul; 71(5):1059-71. PubMed ID: 19525537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Top-down knowledge modulates onset capture in a feedforward manner.
    Becker SI; Lewis AJ; Axtens JE
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2017 Apr; 24(2):436-446. PubMed ID: 27535753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Goal-driven modulation of oculomotor capture.
    Ludwig CJ; Gilchrist ID
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Nov; 65(8):1243-51. PubMed ID: 14710959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Irrelevant singletons in pop-out search: attentional capture or filtering costs?
    Becker SI
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Aug; 33(4):764-87. PubMed ID: 17683227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Selection history alters attentional filter settings persistently and beyond top-down control.
    Kadel H; Feldmann-Wüstefeld T; Schubö A
    Psychophysiology; 2017 May; 54(5):736-754. PubMed ID: 28169422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Inter-trial inhibition of attention to features is modulated by task relevance.
    Levinthal BR; Lleras A
    J Vis; 2008 Nov; 8(15):12.1-15. PubMed ID: 19146296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bottom-up attention capture with distractor and target singletons defined in the same (color) dimension is not a matter of feature uncertainty.
    Weichselbaum H; Ansorge U
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2018 Aug; 80(6):1350-1361. PubMed ID: 29777515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Slippage theory and the flanker paradigm: an early-selection account of selective attention failures.
    Gaspelin N; Ruthruff E; Jung K
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Jun; 40(3):1257-73. PubMed ID: 24730746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.