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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25976299)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Contingent visual marking by transients.
    Peterson MS; Belopolsky AV; Kramer AF
    Percept Psychophys; 2003 Jul; 65(5):695-710. PubMed ID: 12956578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Visual change with moving displays: more evidence for color feature map inhibition during preview search.
    Kunar MA; Humphreys GW; Smith KJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2003 Aug; 29(4):779-92. PubMed ID: 12967221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. When a reappearance is old news: visual marking survives occlusion.
    Kunar MA; Humphreys GW; Smith KJ; Watson DG
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2003 Feb; 29(1):185-98. PubMed ID: 12669757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Remembered but unused: the accessory items in working memory that do not guide attention.
    Peters JC; Goebel R; Roelfsema PR
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2009 Jun; 21(6):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18702589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Visual working memory supports the inhibition of previously processed information: evidence from preview search.
    Al-Aidroos N; Emrich SM; Ferber S; Pratt J
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Jun; 38(3):643-63. PubMed ID: 21988363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Surface-based constraints on target selection and distractor rejection: evidence from preview search.
    Dent K; Humphreys GW; He X; Braithwaite JJ
    Vision Res; 2014 Apr; 97():89-99. PubMed ID: 24594000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Parieto-occipital areas involved in efficient filtering in search: a time course analysis of visual marking using behavioural and functional imaging procedures.
    Humphreys GW; Kyllingsbaek S; Watson DG; Olivers CN; Law I; Paulson OB
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2004 May; 57(4):610-35. PubMed ID: 15204126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Irrelevant singletons in visual search do not capture attention but can produce nonspatial filtering costs.
    Wykowska A; Schubö A
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 Mar; 23(3):645-60. PubMed ID: 19929330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Negative cues lead to more inefficient search than positive cues even at later stages of visual search.
    Kawashima T; Matsumoto E
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Oct; 190():85-94. PubMed ID: 30036747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Integrating space and time in visual search: how the preview benefit is modulated by stereoscopic depth.
    Dent K; Braithwaite JJ; He X; Humphreys GW
    Vision Res; 2012 Jul; 65():45-61. PubMed ID: 22728923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Electrophysiological correlates of active suppression and attentional selection in preview visual search.
    Berggren N; Eimer M
    Neuropsychologia; 2018 Nov; 120():75-85. PubMed ID: 30359651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Visual marking across eye blinks.
    Irwin DE; Humphreys GW
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2013 Feb; 20(1):128-34. PubMed ID: 23073720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Object-based inhibitory priming in preview search: evidence from the "top-up" procedure.
    Kunar MA; Humphreys GW
    Mem Cognit; 2006 Apr; 34(3):459-74. PubMed ID: 16933757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Running the figure to the ground: figure-ground segmentation during visual search.
    Ralph BC; Seli P; Cheng VO; Solman GJ; Smilek D
    Vision Res; 2014 Apr; 97():65-73. PubMed ID: 24582768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. A search order lost effect: ignoring a singleton distractor affects visual search efficiency.
    Kumada T
    Vision Res; 2010 Jun; 50(14):1402-13. PubMed ID: 20025896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Active ignoring in early visual cortex.
    Payne HE; Allen HA
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2011 Aug; 23(8):2046-58. PubMed ID: 20807054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Does previewing one stimulus feature help conjunction search?
    Olds ES; Fockler KA
    Perception; 2004; 33(2):195-216. PubMed ID: 15109162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The remains of the trial: goal-determined inter-trial suppression of selective attention.
    Lleras A; Levinthal BR; Kawahara J
    Prog Brain Res; 2009; 176():195-213. PubMed ID: 19733758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.