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 *

249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27234013)

  • 1. Threat captures attention, but not automatically: Top-down goals modulate attentional orienting to threat distractors.
    Vromen JM; Lipp OV; Remington RW; Becker SI
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Oct; 78(7):2266-79. PubMed ID: 27234013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The spider does not always win the fight for attention: Disengagement from threat is modulated by goal set.
    Vromen JM; Lipp OV; Remington RW
    Cogn Emot; 2015; 29(7):1185-96. PubMed ID: 25329044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. ERP correlates of attentional processing in spider fear: evidence of threat-specific hypervigilance.
    Venetacci R; Johnstone A; Kirkby KC; Matthews A
    Cogn Emot; 2018 May; 32(3):437-449. PubMed ID: 28413898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Attentional capture by alcohol-related stimuli may be activated involuntarily by top-down search goals.
    Brown CRH; Duka T; Forster S
    Psychopharmacology (Berl); 2018 Jul; 235(7):2087-2099. PubMed ID: 29696310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. When spiders appear suddenly: spider-phobic patients are distracted by task-irrelevant spiders.
    Gerdes AB; Alpers GW; Pauli P
    Behav Res Ther; 2008 Feb; 46(2):174-87. PubMed ID: 18154873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cross-modal influences on attentional asymmetries: Additive effects of attentional orienting and arousal.
    Thomas NA; Barone AJ; Flew AH; Nicholls MER
    Neuropsychologia; 2017 Feb; 96():39-51. PubMed ID: 28063992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The role of top-down spatial attention in contingent attentional capture.
    Huang W; Su Y; Zhen Y; Qu Z
    Psychophysiology; 2016 May; 53(5):650-62. PubMed ID: 26879628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Testing a goal-driven account of involuntary attentional capture by threat.
    Brown CRH; Berggren N; Forster S
    Emotion; 2020 Jun; 20(4):572-589. PubMed ID: 30869941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An effective attentional set for a specific colour does not prevent capture by infrequently presented motion distractors.
    Retell JD; Becker SI; Remington RW
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2016; 69(7):1340-65. PubMed ID: 26299891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Expectancy and attention bias to spiders: Dissecting anticipation and allocation processes using ERPs.
    Abado E; Aue T; Pourtois G; Okon-Singer H
    Psychophysiology; 2024 Jun; 61(6):e14546. PubMed ID: 38406863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Expectancy influences on attention to threat are only weak and transient: Behavioral and physiological evidence.
    Aue T; Chauvigné LA; Bristle M; Okon-Singer H; Guex R
    Biol Psychol; 2016 Dec; 121(Pt B):173-186. PubMed ID: 27396748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Not looking for any trouble? Purely affective attentional settings do not induce goal-driven attentional capture.
    Brown CRH; Berggren N; Forster S
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Jun; 82(3):1150-1165. PubMed ID: 31773510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Social anxiety and attentional biases: A top-down contribution?
    Boal HL; Christensen BK; Goodhew SC
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2018 Jan; 80(1):42-53. PubMed ID: 28887795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Gamma-band activity reflects attentional guidance by facial expression.
    Müsch K; Siegel M; Engel AK; Schneider TR
    Neuroimage; 2017 Feb; 146():1142-1148. PubMed ID: 27637862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Attentional avoidance of threatening stimuli.
    Britton MK; Anderson BA
    Psychol Res; 2021 Feb; 85(1):82-90. PubMed ID: 31605204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Winning or not losing? The impact of non-pain goal focus on attentional bias to learned pain signals.
    Schrooten MGS; Van Damme S; Crombez G; Kindermans H; Vlaeyen JWS
    Scand J Pain; 2018 Oct; 18(4):675-686. PubMed ID: 30074899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Attentional bias to threat in the general population is contingent on target competition, not on attentional control settings.
    Wirth BE; Wentura D
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2018 Apr; 71(4):975-988. PubMed ID: 28303742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A category-specific top-down attentional set can affect the neural responses outside the current focus of attention.
    Jiang Y; Wu X; Gao X
    Neurosci Lett; 2017 Oct; 659():80-85. PubMed ID: 28735084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Spider vs. guns: expectancy and attention biases to phylogenetic threat do not extend to ontogenetic threat.
    Abado E; Aue T; Okon-Singer H
    Front Psychol; 2023; 14():1232985. PubMed ID: 37711323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.