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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27547194)

  • 21. Reducing and restoring stimulus-response compatibility effects by decreasing the discriminability of location words.
    Miles JD; Proctor RW
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2009 Jan; 130(1):95-102. PubMed ID: 19041085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Does Perceptual Simulation Explain Spatial Effects in Word Categorization?
    Treccani B; Mulatti C; Sulpizio S; Job R
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():1102. PubMed ID: 31156515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The developmental pattern of stimulus and response interference in a color-object Stroop task: an ERP study.
    Jongen EM; Jonkman LM
    BMC Neurosci; 2008 Sep; 9():82. PubMed ID: 18775060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The impact of subliminal effect images in voluntary vs. stimulus-driven actions.
    Le Bars S; Hsu YF; Waszak F
    Cognition; 2016 Nov; 156():6-15. PubMed ID: 27467892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Electrophysiological dynamics reveal distinct processing of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conflicts.
    Li Q; Wang K; Nan W; Zheng Y; Wu H; Wang H; Liu X
    Psychophysiology; 2015 Apr; 52(4):562-71. PubMed ID: 25395309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm.
    Masaki H; Takasawa N; Yamazaki K
    Psychophysiology; 2000 Jul; 37(4):464-72. PubMed ID: 10934905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Dissociating stimulus-response compatibility and modality compatibility in task switching.
    Friedgen E; Koch I; Stephan DN
    Mem Cognit; 2022 Oct; 50(7):1546-1562. PubMed ID: 35103924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evidence for effects of phonological correspondence between visible speech and written syllables.
    Kerzel D
    Psychol Res; 2002 Aug; 66(3):195-200. PubMed ID: 12192448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Brain-behavior relationships: evidence from practice effects in spatial stimulus-response compatibility.
    Iacoboni M; Woods RP; Mazziotta JC
    J Neurophysiol; 1996 Jul; 76(1):321-31. PubMed ID: 8836228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Dissociating between object affordances and spatial compatibility effects using early response components.
    Wilf M; Holmes NP; Schwartz I; Makin TR
    Front Psychol; 2013; 4():591. PubMed ID: 24027552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Influences of multiple spatial stimulus and response codes on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility.
    Cho YS; Proctor RW
    Percept Psychophys; 2004 Aug; 66(6):1003-17. PubMed ID: 15675647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Flowers and spiders in spatial stimulus-response compatibility: does affective valence influence selection of task-sets or selection of responses?
    Yamaguchi M; Chen J; Mishler S; Proctor RW
    Cogn Emot; 2018 Aug; 32(5):1003-1017. PubMed ID: 28946804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Mixing location-irrelevant and location-relevant trials: influence of stimulus mode on spatial compatibility effects.
    Proctor RW; Vu KP
    Mem Cognit; 2002 Mar; 30(2):281-93. PubMed ID: 12035890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues.
    Brass M; Bekkering H; Wohlschläger A; Prinz W
    Brain Cogn; 2000 Nov; 44(2):124-43. PubMed ID: 11041986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A spatial version of the Stroop task for examining proactive and reactive control independently from non-conflict processes.
    Spinelli G; Lupker SJ
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2024 May; 86(4):1259-1286. PubMed ID: 38691237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Compatibility relationships with simple lever tools.
    Müsseler J; Skottke EM
    Hum Factors; 2011 Aug; 53(4):383-90. PubMed ID: 21901935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Visuomotor priming of a manual reaching movement during a perceptual decision task.
    Olivier G
    Brain Res; 2006 Dec; 1124(1):81-5. PubMed ID: 17069774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Auditory stimulus has a larger effect on anticipatory postural adjustments in older than young adults during choice step reaction.
    Watanabe T; Saito K; Ishida K; Tanabe S; Nojima I
    Eur J Appl Physiol; 2017 Dec; 117(12):2409-2423. PubMed ID: 29027033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Does response modality influence conflict? Modelling vocal and manual response Stroop interference.
    Fennell A; Ratcliff R
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 Nov; 45(11):2098-2119. PubMed ID: 30802093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Stimulus-target compatibility for reaching movements.
    Stins JF; Michaels CF
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1997 Jun; 23(3):756-67. PubMed ID: 9180043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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