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.
3. Distractor intrusions are the result of delayed attentional engagement: A new temporal variability account of attentional selectivity in dynamic visual tasks. Zivony A; Eimer M J Exp Psychol Gen; 2021 Jan; 150(1):23-41. PubMed ID: 32700923 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. How feature relationships influence attention and awareness: Evidence from eye movements and EEG. Martin A; Becker SI J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2018 Dec; 44(12):1865-1883. PubMed ID: 30211593 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Statistical regularities induce spatial as well as feature-specific suppression. Failing M; Feldmann-Wüstefeld T; Wang B; Olivers C; Theeuwes J J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Oct; 45(10):1291-1303. PubMed ID: 31157536 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Capture by Context Elements, Not Attentional Suppression of Distractors, Explains the P Kerzel D; Burra N J Cogn Neurosci; 2020 Jun; 32(6):1170-1183. PubMed ID: 31967520 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The attentional template is shifted and asymmetrically sharpened by distractor context. Yu X; Geng JJ J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Mar; 45(3):336-353. PubMed ID: 30742475 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of task set-modulating attentional capture depends on the distractor cost in visual search: evidence from N2pc. Zhao D; Liang S; Jin Z; Li L Neuroreport; 2014 Jul; 25(10):737-42. PubMed ID: 24840929 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Controlling the Flow of Distracting Information in Working Memory. Hakim N; Feldmann-Wüstefeld T; Awh E; Vogel EK Cereb Cortex; 2021 Jun; 31(7):3323-3337. PubMed ID: 33675357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evidence for a dissociation between the control of oculomotor capture and disengagement. Born S; Kerzel D; Theeuwes J Exp Brain Res; 2011 Feb; 208(4):621-31. PubMed ID: 21188362 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The influence of relevant and irrelevant stereoscopic depth cues: Depth information does not always capture attention. Plewan T; Rinkenauer G Atten Percept Psychophys; 2018 Nov; 80(8):1996-2007. PubMed ID: 30030691 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Characteristics of covert and overt visual orienting: Evidence from attentional and oculomotor capture. Wu SC; Remington RW J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2003 Oct; 29(5):1050-67. PubMed ID: 14585022 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Towards understanding how we pay attention in naturalistic visual search settings. Turoman N; Tivadar RI; Retsa C; Murray MM; Matusz PJ Neuroimage; 2021 Dec; 244():118556. PubMed ID: 34492292 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Preparing for distraction: Attention is enhanced prior to the presentation of distractors. Makovski T J Exp Psychol Gen; 2019 Feb; 148(2):221-236. PubMed ID: 30346200 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evidence for second-order singleton suppression based on probabilistic expectations. Won BY; Kosoyan M; Geng JJ J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Jan; 45(1):125-138. PubMed ID: 30596437 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Suppression of a salient distractor protects the processing of target features. Narhi-Martinez W; Dube B; Chen J; Leber AB; Golomb JD Psychon Bull Rev; 2024 Feb; 31(1):223-233. PubMed ID: 37528277 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]