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 *

207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26191618)

  • 21. ERP correlates of the irrelevant sound effect.
    Bell R; Dentale S; Buchner A; Mayr S
    Psychophysiology; 2010 Nov; 47(6):1182-91. PubMed ID: 20456662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Boundaries of semantic distraction: dominance and lexicality act at retrieval.
    Marsh JE; Perham N; Sörqvist P; Jones DM
    Mem Cognit; 2014 Nov; 42(8):1285-301. PubMed ID: 24993544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Cognitive control of involuntary distraction by deviant sounds.
    Parmentier FB; Hebrero M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Sep; 39(5):1635-41. PubMed ID: 23565784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Non-intentional but not automatic: reduction of word- and arrow-based compatibility effects by sound distractors in the same categorical domain.
    Miles JD; Proctor RW
    Exp Brain Res; 2009 Oct; 199(1):101-6. PubMed ID: 19688202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Towards a cognitive model of distraction by auditory novelty: the role of involuntary attention capture and semantic processing.
    Parmentier FB
    Cognition; 2008 Dec; 109(3):345-62. PubMed ID: 19007926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Distractor modality can turn semantic interference into semantic facilitation in the picture-word interference task: implications for theories of lexical access in speech production.
    Hantsch A; Jescheniak JD; Schriefers H
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 Nov; 35(6):1443-53. PubMed ID: 19857015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evidence for habituation of the irrelevant-sound effect on serial recall.
    Röer JP; Bell R; Buchner A
    Mem Cognit; 2014 May; 42(4):609-21. PubMed ID: 24203781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Auditory distraction does more than disrupt rehearsal processes in children's serial recall.
    AuBuchon AM; McGill CI; Elliott EM
    Mem Cognit; 2019 May; 47(4):738-748. PubMed ID: 30499097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Metacognition in Auditory Distraction: How Expectations about Distractibility Influence the Irrelevant Sound Effect.
    Röer JP; Rummel J; Bell R; Buchner A
    J Cogn; 2017 Nov; 1(1):2. PubMed ID: 31517180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Why star retrieves scar: Binding and retrieval of perceptual distractor features.
    Laub R; Frings C
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2020 Feb; 46(2):350-363. PubMed ID: 31180703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Working memory capacity affects the interference control of distractors at auditory gating.
    Tsuchida Y; Katayama J; Murohashi H
    Neurosci Lett; 2012 May; 516(1):62-6. PubMed ID: 22484011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Postcategorical auditory distraction in short-term memory: Insights from increased task load and task type.
    Marsh JE; Yang J; Qualter P; Richardson C; Perham N; Vachon F; Hughes RW
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2018 Jun; 44(6):882-897. PubMed ID: 29389192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Divided attention reduces resistance to distraction at encoding but not retrieval.
    Weeks JC; Hasher L
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2017 Aug; 24(4):1268-1273. PubMed ID: 27900585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. On the robustness of prime response retrieval processes: evidence from auditory negative priming without probe interference.
    Mayr S; Buchner A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2014 Feb; 67(2):335-57. PubMed ID: 23799324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Is auditory distraction by changing-state and deviant sounds underpinned by the same mechanism? Evidence from pupillometry.
    Marois A; Marsh JE; Vachon F
    Biol Psychol; 2019 Feb; 141():64-74. PubMed ID: 30633950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A new semantic vigilance task: vigilance decrement, workload, and sensitivity to dual-task costs.
    Epling SL; Russell PN; Helton WS
    Exp Brain Res; 2016 Jan; 234(1):133-9. PubMed ID: 26403293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Proactive control of affective distraction: Experience-based but not expectancy-based.
    Schmidts C; Foerster A; Kleinsorge T; Kunde W
    Cognition; 2020 Jan; 194():104072. PubMed ID: 31520864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. What can we learn about visual attention to multiple words from the word-word interference task?
    Mulatti C; Ceccherini L; Coltheart M
    Mem Cognit; 2015 Jan; 43(1):121-32. PubMed ID: 25052252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Happiness increases distraction by auditory deviant stimuli.
    Pacheco-Unguetti AP; Parmentier FB
    Br J Psychol; 2016 Aug; 107(3):419-33. PubMed ID: 26302716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.