304 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30247049)
21. Spatial negative priming: Location or response?
Neill WT; Kleinsmith AL
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Nov; 78(8):2411-2419. PubMed ID: 27465862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Electrophysiological evidence of low salience distractor interference during visual search.
Fortier-Gauthier U; Jolicœur P
Psychophysiology; 2018 Jul; 55(7):e13068. PubMed ID: 29423999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The allocation of resources in visual working memory and multiple attentional templates.
Kerzel D; Witzel C
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 May; 45(5):645-658. PubMed ID: 30920252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Learned distractor rejection in the face of strong target guidance.
Stilwell BT; Vecera SP
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2020 Sep; 46(9):926-941. PubMed ID: 32391708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Components of working memory and visual selective attention.
Burnham BR; Sabia M; Langan C
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Feb; 40(1):391-403. PubMed ID: 23875574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Constraints on dilution from a narrow attentional zoom reveal how spatial and color cues direct selection.
Chen Z; Cave KR
Vision Res; 2014 Aug; 101():125-37. PubMed ID: 24973562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Tracking target and distractor processing in fixed-feature visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology.
Jannati A; Gaspar JM; McDonald JJ
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Dec; 39(6):1713-30. PubMed ID: 23527999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Inhibition of irrelevant response codes is affected by matching target-distractor modalities.
Möller M; Mayr S; Buchner A
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Feb; 45(2):189-208. PubMed ID: 30589356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Effects of working memory contents and perceptual load on distractor processing: When a response-related distractor is held in working memory.
Koshino H
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2017 Jan; 172():19-25. PubMed ID: 27838400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Visual salience can co-exist with dilution during visual selection.
Biggs AT; Gibson BS
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Feb; 40(1):7-14. PubMed ID: 23937214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Dilution: atheoretical burden or just load? A reply to Tsal and Benoni (2010).
Lavie N; Torralbo A
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Dec; 36(6):1657-64; discussion 1665-8. PubMed ID: 21133554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Overt attention in contextual cuing of visual search is driven by the attentional set, but not by the predictiveness of distractors.
Beesley T; Hanafi G; Vadillo MA; Shanks DR; Livesey EJ
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2018 May; 44(5):707-721. PubMed ID: 29608077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Attentional capture decreases when distractors remain visible during rapid serial visual presentations.
Inukai T; Kumada T; Kawahara J
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2010 May; 72(4):939-50. PubMed ID: 20436191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Perceptual grouping allows for attention to cover noncontiguous locations and suppress capture from nearby locations.
Kerzel D; Born S; Schönhammer J
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Dec; 38(6):1362-70. PubMed ID: 22428670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Selective target processing: perceptual load or distractor salience?
Eltiti S; Wallace D; Fox E
Percept Psychophys; 2005 Jul; 67(5):876-85. PubMed ID: 16334059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The footprints of visual attention during search with 100% valid and 100% invalid cues.
Eckstein MP; Pham BT; Shimozaki SS
Vision Res; 2004 Jun; 44(12):1193-207. PubMed ID: 15066385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Attentional weights in vision as products of spatial and nonspatial components.
Nordfang M; Staugaard C; Bundesen C
Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Jun; 25(3):1043-1051. PubMed ID: 28634784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Attentional selection within and across hemispheres: implications for the perceptual load theory.
Wei P; Kang G; Zhou X
Exp Brain Res; 2013 Mar; 225(1):37-45. PubMed ID: 23187885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluative pressure overcomes perceptual load effects.
Normand A; Autin F; Croizet JC
Psychon Bull Rev; 2015 Jun; 22(3):737-42. PubMed ID: 25233881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Attentional focus, processing load, and Stroop interference.
Chen Z
Percept Psychophys; 2003 Aug; 65(6):888-900. PubMed ID: 14528898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
