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 *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31212105)

  • 1. Dwelling on distractors varying in target-distractor similarity.
    Horstmann G; Ernst D; Becker S
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2019 Jul; 198():102859. PubMed ID: 31212105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dwelling on simple stimuli in visual search.
    Horstmann G; Becker SI; Grubert A
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Feb; 82(2):607-625. PubMed ID: 31721042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Distractor Dwelling, Skipping, and Revisiting Determine Target Absent Performance in Difficult Visual Search.
    Horstmann G; Herwig A; Becker SI
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1152. PubMed ID: 27574510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of part-based similarity on visual search: the Frankenbear experiment.
    Alexander RG; Zelinsky GJ
    Vision Res; 2012 Feb; 54():20-30. PubMed ID: 22227607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Efficient visual search for multiple targets among categorical distractors: effects of distractor-distractor similarity across trials.
    Ohkita M; Obayashi Y; Jitsumori M
    Vision Res; 2014 Mar; 96():96-105. PubMed ID: 24486515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Running the figure to the ground: figure-ground segmentation during visual search.
    Ralph BC; Seli P; Cheng VO; Solman GJ; Smilek D
    Vision Res; 2014 Apr; 97():65-73. PubMed ID: 24582768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A search order lost effect: ignoring a singleton distractor affects visual search efficiency.
    Kumada T
    Vision Res; 2010 Jun; 50(14):1402-13. PubMed ID: 20025896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Foraging through multiple target categories reveals the flexibility of visual working memory.
    Kristjánsson T; Kristjánsson Á
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Feb; 183():108-115. PubMed ID: 29275949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Implicit object naming in visual search: Evidence from phonological competition.
    Walenchok SC; Hout MC; Goldinger SD
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 Nov; 78(8):2633-2654. PubMed ID: 27531018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Visual search asymmetry depends on target-distractor feature similarity: Is the asymmetry simply a result of distractor rejection speed?
    Zhang YR; Onyper S
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Jan; 82(1):80-97. PubMed ID: 31359376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effects of distractors in multiple object tracking are modulated by the similarity of distractor and target features.
    Feria CS
    Perception; 2012; 41(3):287-304. PubMed ID: 22808583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Target-nontarget similarity decreases search efficiency and increases stimulus-driven control in visual search.
    Barras C; Kerzel D
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Oct; 79(7):2037-2043. PubMed ID: 28681179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Attentional guidance during visual search among patients with schizophrenia.
    Elahipanah A; Christensen BK; Reingold EM
    Schizophr Res; 2011 Sep; 131(1-3):224-30. PubMed ID: 21741215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The spatial impact of visual distractors on saccade latency.
    McSorley E; McCloy R; Lyne C
    Vision Res; 2012 May; 60():61-72. PubMed ID: 22469779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The visual properties of proximal and remote distractors differentially influence reaching planning times: evidence from pro- and antipointing tasks.
    Heath M; DeSimone JC
    Exp Brain Res; 2016 Nov; 234(11):3259-3268. PubMed ID: 27405998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Remembered but unused: the accessory items in working memory that do not guide attention.
    Peters JC; Goebel R; Roelfsema PR
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2009 Jun; 21(6):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18702589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Can intertrial priming account for the similarity effect in visual search?
    Becker SI; Ansorge U; Horstmann G
    Vision Res; 2009 Jul; 49(14):1738-56. PubMed ID: 19358862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The target effect: visual memory for unnamed search targets.
    Thomas MD; Williams CC
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2014; 67(11):2090-104. PubMed ID: 24684498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Rewarded visual items capture attention only in heterogeneous contexts.
    Feldmann-Wüstefeld T; Brandhofer R; Schubö A
    Psychophysiology; 2016 Jul; 53(7):1063-73. PubMed ID: 26997364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Bottom-up and top-down control in visual search.
    van Zoest W; Donk M
    Perception; 2004; 33(8):927-37. PubMed ID: 15521692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.