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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28537009)

  • 1. Modeling cognitive load effects of conversation between a passenger and driver.
    Tillman G; Strayer D; Eidels A; Heathcote A
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Aug; 79(6):1795-1803. PubMed ID: 28537009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Sensitivity evaluation of the visual, tactile, and auditory detection response task method while driving.
    Stojmenova K; Jakus G; Sodnik J
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2017 May; 18(4):431-436. PubMed ID: 27588336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Validation of auditory detection response task method for assessing the attentional effects of cognitive load.
    Stojmenova K; Sodnik J
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2018 Jul; 19(5):495-500. PubMed ID: 29461865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. An analysis of the suitability of a low-cost eye tracker for assessing the cognitive load of drivers.
    Čegovnik T; Stojmenova K; Jakus G; Sodnik J
    Appl Ergon; 2018 Apr; 68():1-11. PubMed ID: 29409621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessing Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile.
    Strayer DL; Turrill J; Cooper JM; Coleman JR; Medeiros-Ward N; Biondi F
    Hum Factors; 2015 Dec; 57(8):1300-24. PubMed ID: 26534847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A Broader Application of the Detection Response Task to Cognitive Tasks and Online Environments.
    Innes RJ; Evans NJ; Howard ZL; Eidels A; Brown SD
    Hum Factors; 2021 Aug; 63(5):896-909. PubMed ID: 32749155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Is take-over time all that matters? The impact of visual-cognitive load on driver take-over quality after conditionally automated driving.
    Zeeb K; Buchner A; Schrauf M
    Accid Anal Prev; 2016 Jul; 92():230-9. PubMed ID: 27107472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the selection of stimulus for the auditory variant of the detection response task method for driving experiments.
    Stojmenova K; Policardi F; Sodnik J
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2018 Jan; 19(1):23-27. PubMed ID: 28594238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The role of self-regulation in the context of driver distraction: A simulator study.
    Wandtner B; Schumacher M; Schmidt EA
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2016 Jul; 17(5):472-9. PubMed ID: 27082493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Investigating the influence of working memory capacity when driving behavior is combined with cognitive load: An LCT study of young novice drivers.
    Ross V; Jongen EM; Wang W; Brijs T; Brijs K; Ruiter RA; Wets G
    Accid Anal Prev; 2014 Jan; 62():377-87. PubMed ID: 23915472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The interaction of cognitive load and attention-directing cues in driving.
    Lee YC; Lee JD; Boyle LN
    Hum Factors; 2009 Jun; 51(3):271-80. PubMed ID: 19750791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Structural equation model analysis for the evaluation of overall driving performance: A driving simulator study focusing on driver distraction.
    Papantoniou P
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2018 Apr; 19(3):317-325. PubMed ID: 29087738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Neurocognitive Correlates of Young Drivers' Performance in a Driving Simulator.
    Guinosso SA; Johnson SB; Schultheis MT; Graefe AC; Bishai DM
    J Adolesc Health; 2016 Apr; 58(4):467-473. PubMed ID: 27013272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving.
    Zeeb K; Buchner A; Schrauf M
    Accid Anal Prev; 2015 May; 78():212-221. PubMed ID: 25794922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. EEG alpha spindles and prolonged brake reaction times during auditory distraction in an on-road driving study.
    Sonnleitner A; Treder MS; Simon M; Willmann S; Ewald A; Buchner A; Schrauf M
    Accid Anal Prev; 2014 Jan; 62():110-8. PubMed ID: 24144496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Lane keeping under cognitive load: performance changes and mechanisms.
    He J; McCarley JS; Kramer AF
    Hum Factors; 2014 Mar; 56(2):414-26. PubMed ID: 24689258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Visual attention in driving: the effects of cognitive load and visual disruption.
    Lee YC; Lee JD; Boyle LN
    Hum Factors; 2007 Aug; 49(4):721-33. PubMed ID: 17702223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Concurrent processing of vehicle lane keeping and speech comprehension tasks.
    Cao S; Liu Y
    Accid Anal Prev; 2013 Oct; 59():46-54. PubMed ID: 23764876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The role of looming and attention capture in drivers' braking responses.
    Terry HR; Charlton SG; Perrone JA
    Accid Anal Prev; 2008 Jul; 40(4):1375-82. PubMed ID: 18606269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Classifying Drivers' Cognitive Load Using EEG Signals.
    Barua S; Ahmed MU; Begum S
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2017; 237():99-106. PubMed ID: 28479551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.