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 *

302 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25813738)

  • 21. Distractor interference in focused attention tasks is not mediated by attention capture.
    Gronau N; Cohen A; Ben-Shakhar G
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Sep; 62(9):1685-95. PubMed ID: 19382007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Selective attention supports working memory maintenance by modulating perceptual processing of distractors.
    Sreenivasan KK; Jha AP
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2007 Jan; 19(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 17214561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Working-memory capacity predicts the executive control of visual search among distractors: the influences of sustained and selective attention.
    Poole BJ; Kane MJ
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Jul; 62(7):1430-54. PubMed ID: 19123118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The spatial focus of attention is controlled at perceptual and cognitive levels.
    Caparos S; Linnell KJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Oct; 36(5):1080-107. PubMed ID: 20873935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Selective target processing: perceptual load or distractor salience?
    Eltiti S; Wallace D; Fox E
    Percept Psychophys; 2005 Jul; 67(5):876-85. PubMed ID: 16334059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Race and gender of faces can be ignored.
    Murray JE; Machado L; Knight B
    Psychol Res; 2011 Jul; 75(4):324-33. PubMed ID: 20949279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Attentional distractor interference may be diminished by concurrent working memory load in normal participants and traumatic brain injury patients.
    Gil-Gómez de Liaño B; Umiltà C; Stablum F; Tebaldi F; Cantagallo A
    Brain Cogn; 2010 Dec; 74(3):298-305. PubMed ID: 20846773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. On the neural mechanisms underlying the protective function of retroactive cuing against perceptual interference: Evidence by event-related potentials of the EEG.
    Schneider D; Barth A; Getzmann S; Wascher E
    Biol Psychol; 2017 Mar; 124():47-56. PubMed ID: 28115199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Multi-modal distraction: insights from children's limited attention.
    Matusz PJ; Broadbent H; Ferrari J; Forrest B; Merkley R; Scerif G
    Cognition; 2015 Mar; 136():156-65. PubMed ID: 25497524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Impact of working memory load on cognitive control in trait anxiety: an ERP study.
    Qi S; Zeng Q; Luo Y; Duan H; Ding C; Hu W; Li H
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(11):e111791. PubMed ID: 25369121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence for response exclusion.
    Dhooge E; Hartsuiker RJ
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2010 Jul; 36(4):878-91. PubMed ID: 20565207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Auditory and visual distractors disrupt multisensory temporal acuity in the crossmodal temporal order judgment task.
    Dean CL; Eggleston BA; Gibney KD; Aligbe E; Blackwell M; Kwakye LD
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(7):e0179564. PubMed ID: 28723907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Distraction biases working memory for faces.
    Mallett R; Mummaneni A; Lewis-Peacock JA
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2020 Apr; 27(2):350-356. PubMed ID: 31907852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The impact of interference on short-term memory for visual orientation.
    Rademaker RL; Bloem IM; De Weerd P; Sack AT
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2015 Dec; 41(6):1650-65. PubMed ID: 26371383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Top-Down Processes Override Bottom-Up Interference in the Flanker Task.
    Avital-Cohen R; Tsal Y
    Psychol Sci; 2016 May; 27(5):651-8. PubMed ID: 26993739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Perceptual load interacts with stimulus processing across sensory modalities.
    Klemen J; Büchel C; Rose M
    Eur J Neurosci; 2009 Jun; 29(12):2426-34. PubMed ID: 19490081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Memory-driven capture during focused visual attention.
    Yang Y; Su L; Pan Y
    Psychol Res; 2024 Jun; 88(4):1389-1398. PubMed ID: 38478053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Distracted by pleasure: Effects of positive versus negative valence on emotional capture under load.
    Gupta R; Hur YJ; Lavie N
    Emotion; 2016 Apr; 16(3):328-37. PubMed ID: 26479771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Now hear this: Inattentional deafness depends on task relatedness.
    Tellinghuisen DJ; Cohen AJ; Cooper NJ
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Nov; 78(8):2527-2546. PubMed ID: 27351552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.