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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32223292)

  • 1. Separating the effects of stimulus-gravity compatibility and stimulus-response compatibility on visuomotor synchronization.
    Zhou L; Shangguan M; Xing L; Yu H; Wang H; Hove MJ; Li S
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2020 Apr; 46(4):405-415. PubMed ID: 32223292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Investigating grounded conceptualization: Stimulus-response compatibility for tool handles is due to spatial attention.
    Matheson HE; Thompson-Schill SL
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Apr; 45(4):441-457. PubMed ID: 30816789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A diffusion model analysis of the response-effect compatibility effect.
    Janczyk M; Lerche V
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2019 Feb; 148(2):237-251. PubMed ID: 29847981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Stimulus-Response and Response-Effect Compatibility With Touchless Gestures and Moving Action Effects.
    Janczyk M; Xiong A; Proctor RW
    Hum Factors; 2019 Dec; 61(8):1297-1314. PubMed ID: 30844314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Compatibility of motion facilitates visuomotor synchronization.
    Hove MJ; Spivey MJ; Krumhansl CL
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Dec; 36(6):1525-34. PubMed ID: 20695698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effect of directional compatibility on the response latencies of ocular and manual movements.
    Niechwiej-Szwedo E; McIlroy WE; Green R; Verrier MC
    Exp Brain Res; 2005 Apr; 162(2):220-9. PubMed ID: 15599726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Explicit spatial compatibility is not critical to the object handle effect.
    Saccone EJ; Churches O; Nicholls ME
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2016 Oct; 42(10):1643-53. PubMed ID: 27668425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Influence of Internal and External Noise on Spontaneous Visuomotor Synchronization.
    Varlet M; Schmidt RC; Richardson MJ
    J Mot Behav; 2016; 48(2):122-31. PubMed ID: 26046969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Some considerations about the biological appearance of pacing stimuli in visuomotor finger-tapping tasks.
    Ruspantini I; D'Ausilio A; Mäki H; Ilmoniemi RJ
    Cogn Process; 2011 May; 12(2):215-8. PubMed ID: 21279665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Distortions of visual time induced by motor adaptation.
    Anobile G; Domenici N; Togoli I; Burr D; Arrighi R
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2020 Jul; 149(7):1333-1343. PubMed ID: 31789572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Synchronizing with auditory and visual rhythms: an fMRI assessment of modality differences and modality appropriateness.
    Hove MJ; Fairhurst MT; Kotz SA; Keller PE
    Neuroimage; 2013 Feb; 67():313-21. PubMed ID: 23207574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Synchronization to auditory and visual rhythms in hearing and deaf individuals.
    Iversen JR; Patel AD; Nicodemus B; Emmorey K
    Cognition; 2015 Jan; 134():232-44. PubMed ID: 25460395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Trajectory formation during sensorimotor synchronization and syncopation to auditory and visual metronomes.
    Pabst A; Balasubramaniam R
    Exp Brain Res; 2018 Nov; 236(11):2847-2856. PubMed ID: 30051262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Action effects are coded as transitions from current to future stimulation: Evidence from compatibility effects in tracking.
    Kunde W; Schmidts C; Wirth R; Herbort O
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2017 Mar; 43(3):477-486. PubMed ID: 27893272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Spatial perspective taking mediated by whole-body motor simulation.
    Muto H; Matsushita S; Morikawa K
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2018 Mar; 44(3):337-355. PubMed ID: 28795837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of visual cue and response assignment on spatial stimulus coding in stimulus-response compatibility.
    Nishimura A; Yokosawa K
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2012; 65(1):55-72. PubMed ID: 21939367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Enhancement and suppression of tactile signals during reaching.
    Voudouris D; Fiehler K
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2017 Jun; 43(6):1238-1248. PubMed ID: 28383966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Multimodal sensory integration: Diminishing returns in rhythmic synchronization.
    Johnson V; Hsu WY; Ostrand AE; Gazzaley A; Zanto TP
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2020 Oct; 46(10):1077-1087. PubMed ID: 32730071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Automatic imitation? Imitative compatibility affects responses at high perceptual load.
    Catmur C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2016 Apr; 42(4):530-9. PubMed ID: 26569336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Difference in stimulus-response compatibility effect in premotor and motor time between upper and lower limbs.
    Kato Y; Asami T
    Percept Mot Skills; 1998 Dec; 87(3 Pt 1):939-46. PubMed ID: 9885062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.