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 *

159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30566845)

  • 1. Tactile, Visual, and Crossmodal Visual-Tactile Change Blindness: The Effect of Transient Type and Task Demands.
    Riggs SL; Sarter N
    Hum Factors; 2019 Feb; 61(1):5-24. PubMed ID: 30566845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Critique of "Tactile, Visual, and Crossmodal Visual-Tactile Change Blindness: The Effect of Transient Type and Task Demands".
    Greenlee ET
    Hum Factors; 2019 Feb; 61(1):25-28. PubMed ID: 30566842
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Crossmodal Matching: The Case for Developing and Employing a Valid and Feasible Approach to Equate Perceived Stimulus Intensities in Multimodal Research.
    Riggs SL; Sarter N
    Hum Factors; 2019 Feb; 61(1):29-31. PubMed ID: 30566841
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Development and Evaluation of Countermeasures to Tactile Change Blindness.
    Riggs SL; Sarter N
    Hum Factors; 2016 May; 58(3):482-95. PubMed ID: 26826063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. What You Don't Notice Can Harm You: Age-Related Differences in Detecting Concurrent Visual, Auditory, and Tactile Cues.
    Pitts BJ; Sarter N
    Hum Factors; 2018 Jun; 60(4):445-464. PubMed ID: 29470102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Supporting interruption management and multimodal interface design: three meta-analyses of task performance as a function of interrupting task modality.
    Lu SA; Wickens CD; Prinet JC; Hutchins SD; Sarter N; Sebok A
    Hum Factors; 2013 Aug; 55(4):697-724. PubMed ID: 23964412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effectiveness of auditory and tactile crossmodal cues in a dual-task visual and auditory scenario.
    Hopkins K; Kass SJ; Blalock LD; Brill JC
    Ergonomics; 2017 May; 60(5):692-700. PubMed ID: 27267493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Now You Feel It, Now You Don't: The Effect of Movement, Cue Complexity, and Body Location on Tactile Change Detection.
    Gomes K; Betza S; Riggs SL
    Hum Factors; 2020 Jun; 62(4):643-655. PubMed ID: 31180742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Crossmodal change blindness between vision and touch.
    Auvray M; Gallace A; Tan HZ; Spence C
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2007 Oct; 126(2):79-97. PubMed ID: 17187750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. When visual transients impair tactile change detection: a novel case of crossmodal change blindness?
    Gallace A; Auvray M; Tan HZ; Spence C
    Neurosci Lett; 2006 May; 398(3):280-5. PubMed ID: 16480821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The contribution of response conflict, multisensory integration, and body-mediated attention to the crossmodal congruency effect.
    Marini F; Romano D; Maravita A
    Exp Brain Res; 2017 Mar; 235(3):873-887. PubMed ID: 27913817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Visual-tactile selective attention in autism spectrum condition: An increased influence of visual distractors.
    Poole D; Gowen E; Warren PA; Poliakoff E
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2018 Sep; 147(9):1309-1324. PubMed ID: 29963887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. When vision influences the invisible distractor: tactile response compatibility effects require vision.
    Wesslein AK; Spence C; Frings C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Apr; 40(2):763-74. PubMed ID: 24245501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cross-modal attention modulates tactile subitizing but not tactile numerosity estimation.
    Tian Y; Chen L
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2018 Jul; 80(5):1229-1239. PubMed ID: 29549663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Lost in the move? Secondary task performance impairs tactile change detection on the body.
    Gallace A; Zeeden S; Röder B; Spence C
    Conscious Cogn; 2010 Mar; 19(1):215-29. PubMed ID: 19647451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Expected but omitted stimuli affect crossmodal interaction.
    Costantini M; Migliorati D; Donno B; Sirota M; Ferri F
    Cognition; 2018 Feb; 171():52-64. PubMed ID: 29107888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Lost in vision: ERP correlates of exogenous tactile attention when engaging in a visual task.
    Jones A; Forster B
    Neuropsychologia; 2013 Mar; 51(4):675-85. PubMed ID: 23340481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Independent Attention Mechanisms Control the Activation of Tactile and Visual Working Memory Representations.
    Katus T; Eimer M
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2018 May; 30(5):644-655. PubMed ID: 29346019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Crossmodal learning of target-context associations: When would tactile context predict visual search?
    Chen S; Shi Z; Zang X; Zhu X; Assumpção L; Müller HJ; Geyer T
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 May; 82(4):1682-1694. PubMed ID: 31845105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Interruption management: the use of attention-directing tactile cues.
    Hopp PJ; Smith CA; Clegg BA; Heggestad ED
    Hum Factors; 2005; 47(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 15960083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.