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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28152646)

  • 1. Of guns and snakes: testing a modern threat superiority effect.
    Subra B; Muller D; Fourgassie L; Chauvin A; Alexopoulos T
    Cogn Emot; 2018 Feb; 32(1):81-91. PubMed ID: 28152646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Priming a natural or human-made environment directs attention to context-congruent threatening stimuli.
    Young SG; Brown CM; Ambady N
    Cogn Emot; 2012; 26(5):927-33. PubMed ID: 22132869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The detection of fear-relevant stimuli: are guns noticed as quickly as snakes?
    Fox E; Griggs L; Mouchlianitis E
    Emotion; 2007 Nov; 7(4):691-6. PubMed ID: 18039035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Snakes, spiders, guns, and syringes: how specific are evolutionary constraints on the detection of threatening stimuli?
    Blanchette I
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2006 Aug; 59(8):1484-504. PubMed ID: 16846972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Conserved evolutionary history for quick detection of threatening faces.
    Kawai N; Kubo K; Masataka N; Hayakawa S
    Anim Cogn; 2016 May; 19(3):655-60. PubMed ID: 26714818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Attentional modulation of visual-evoked potentials by threat: investigating the effect of evolutionary relevance.
    Brown C; El-Deredy W; Blanchette I
    Brain Cogn; 2010 Dec; 74(3):281-7. PubMed ID: 20888109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Was that a threat? Attentional biases by signals of threat.
    Preciado D; Munneke J; Theeuwes J
    Emotion; 2017 Apr; 17(3):478-486. PubMed ID: 27819442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Is a snake scarier than a gun? The ontogenetic-phylogenetic dispute from a new perspective: The role of arousal.
    Zsido AN; Deak A; Bernath L
    Emotion; 2019 Jun; 19(4):726-732. PubMed ID: 30188154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Contingent capture effects in temporal order judgments.
    Born S; Kerzel D; Pratt J
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2015 Aug; 41(4):995-1006. PubMed ID: 25938252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Stimulus-driven attentional capture by subliminal onset cues.
    Schoeberl T; Fuchs I; Theeuwes J; Ansorge U
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2015 Apr; 77(3):737-48. PubMed ID: 25520044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evolutionary and Modern Image Content Differentially Influence the Processing of Emotional Pictures.
    Dhum M; Herwig U; Opialla S; Siegrist M; Brühl AB
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2017; 11():415. PubMed ID: 28878638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bullets versus burgers: is it threat or relevance that captures attention?
    de Oca BM; Black AA
    Am J Psychol; 2013; 126(3):287-300. PubMed ID: 24027943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Distinct roles of the intraparietal sulcus and temporoparietal junction in attentional capture from distractor features: An individual differences approach.
    Painter DR; Dux PE; Mattingley JB
    Neuropsychologia; 2015 Jul; 74():50-62. PubMed ID: 25724234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Patterns on serpentine shapes elicit visual attention in marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).
    Wombolt JR; Caine NG
    Am J Primatol; 2016 Sep; 78(9):928-36. PubMed ID: 27225979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Using response time distributions to examine top-down influences on attentional capture.
    Burnham BR
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2013 Feb; 75(2):257-77. PubMed ID: 23151961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Does imminent threat capture and hold attention?
    Koster EH; Crombez G; Van Damme S; Verschuere B; De Houwer J
    Emotion; 2004 Sep; 4(3):312-7. PubMed ID: 15456400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Skin conductance responses to masked conditioned stimuli: phylogenetic/ontogenetic factors versus direction of threat?
    Flykt A; Esteves F; Ohman A
    Biol Psychol; 2007 Mar; 74(3):328-36. PubMed ID: 17049710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.