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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25999895)

  • 1. Influence of being videotaped on the prevalence effect during visual search.
    Miyazaki Y
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():583. PubMed ID: 25999895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. False feedback increases detection of low-prevalence targets in visual search.
    Schwark J; Sandry J; Macdonald J; Dolgov I
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2012 Nov; 74(8):1583-9. PubMed ID: 22864899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search.
    Fleck MS; Mitroff SR
    Psychol Sci; 2007 Nov; 18(11):943-7. PubMed ID: 17958706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The relationship between the subjective experience of real-world cognitive failures and objective target-detection performance in visual search.
    Thomson KJ; Goodhew SC
    Cognition; 2021 Dec; 217():104914. PubMed ID: 34592479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Individual differences predict low prevalence visual search performance and sources of errors: An eye-tracking study.
    Peltier C; Becker MW
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2020 Dec; 26(4):646-658. PubMed ID: 32309972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. More is better: Relative prevalence of multiple targets affects search accuracy.
    Cheng PX; Rich AN
    J Vis; 2018 Apr; 18(4):2. PubMed ID: 29614156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Increasing visual search accuracy by being watched.
    Miyazaki Y
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(1):e53500. PubMed ID: 23301079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An individual differences approach to multiple-target visual search errors: How search errors relate to different characteristics of attention.
    Adamo SH; Cain MS; Mitroff SR
    Vision Res; 2017 Dec; 141():258-265. PubMed ID: 27919677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. EEG and Eye Tracking Signatures of Target Encoding during Structured Visual Search.
    Brouwer AM; Hogervorst MA; Oudejans B; Ries AJ; Touryan J
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2017; 11():264. PubMed ID: 28559807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Graded prioritisation of targets in search: reward diminishes the low prevalence effect.
    Hadjipanayi V; Ludwig CJH; Kent C
    Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2023 Aug; 8(1):52. PubMed ID: 37542145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Individual differences predict low prevalence visual search performance.
    Peltier C; Becker MW
    Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2017; 2(1):5. PubMed ID: 28203633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search.
    Hout MC; Walenchok SC; Goldinger SD; Wolfe JM
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2015 Aug; 41(4):977-94. PubMed ID: 25915073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Colour and spatial cueing in low-prevalence visual search.
    Russell NC; Kunar MA
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2012; 65(7):1327-44. PubMed ID: 22493942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search.
    Wolfe JM; Van Wert MJ
    Curr Biol; 2010 Jan; 20(2):121-4. PubMed ID: 20079642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prevalence effect in haptic search.
    Ishibashi K; Watanabe K; Takaoka Y; Watanabe T; Kita S
    Iperception; 2012; 3(8):495-8. PubMed ID: 23145300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cutting through the MADness: Expectations about what a target is doing impact how likely it is to be found in dynamic visual displays.
    Scarince C; Hout MC
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2018 Nov; 71(11):2342-2354. PubMed ID: 30362402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Decision processes in visual search as a function of target prevalence.
    Peltier C; Becker MW
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2016 Sep; 42(9):1466-76. PubMed ID: 27149294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The ultra-rare-item effect: visual search for exceedingly rare items is highly susceptible to error.
    Mitroff SR; Biggs AT
    Psychol Sci; 2014 Jan; 25(1):284-9. PubMed ID: 24270463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The prevalence effect is determined by past experience, not future prospects.
    Lau JS; Huang L
    Vision Res; 2010 Jul; 50(15):1469-74. PubMed ID: 20438744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays.
    Stothart C; Clement A; Brockmole JR
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Feb; 25(1):409-415. PubMed ID: 28484947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.