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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32982008)

  • 1. The affective benefits of nature exposure: What's nature got to do with it?
    Meidenbauer KL; Stenfors CUD; Bratman GN; Gross JJ; Schertz KE; Choe KW; Berman MG
    J Environ Psychol; 2020 Dec; 72():101498. PubMed ID: 32982008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Aesthetic Preference for Nature Sounds Depends on Sound Object Recognition.
    Van Hedger SC; Nusbaum HC; Heald SLM; Huang A; Kotabe HP; Berman MG
    Cogn Sci; 2019 May; 43(5):e12734. PubMed ID: 31087588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Nature benefits revisited: Differences in gait kinematics between nature and urban images disappear when image types are controlled for likeability.
    Burtan D; Burn JF; Leonards U
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(8):e0256635. PubMed ID: 34449799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Edge-Orientation Entropy Predicts Preference for Diverse Types of Man-Made Images.
    Grebenkina M; Brachmann A; Bertamini M; Kaduhm A; Redies C
    Front Neurosci; 2018; 12():678. PubMed ID: 30323736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The contour effect: Differences in the aesthetic preference and stress response to photo-realistic living environments.
    Tawil N; Ascone L; Kühn S
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():933344. PubMed ID: 36532994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Implicit Associations With Nature and Urban Environments: Effects of Lower-Level Processed Image Properties.
    Menzel C; Reese G
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():591403. PubMed ID: 34093298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Image Feature Types and Their Predictions of Aesthetic Preference and Naturalness.
    Ibarra FF; Kardan O; Hunter MR; Kotabe HP; Meyer FAC; Berman MG
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():632. PubMed ID: 28503158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Is the preference of natural versus man-made scenes driven by bottom-up processing of the visual features of nature?
    Kardan O; Demiralp E; Hout MC; Hunter MR; Karimi H; Hanayik T; Yourganov G; Jonides J; Berman MG
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():471. PubMed ID: 25954228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A tablet-based task for assessing environmental preferences in children and adults.
    Meidenbauer KL; Stenfors CUD; Ingram MP; Berman MG
    MethodsX; 2019; 6():1901-1906. PubMed ID: 31516847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Subliminal presentation of emotionally negative vs positive primes increases the perceived beauty of target stimuli.
    Era V; Candidi M; Aglioti SM
    Exp Brain Res; 2015 Nov; 233(11):3271-81. PubMed ID: 26238406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Does beauty capture the eye, even if it's not (overtly) adaptive? A comparative eye-tracking study of spontaneous attention and visual preference with VAST abstract art.
    Mitrovic A; Hegelmaier LM; Leder H; Pelowski M
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2020 Sep; 209():103133. PubMed ID: 32717655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A Change of Scenery: Does Exposure to Images of Nature Affect Delay Discounting and Food Desirability?
    Clarke K; Higgs S; Holley CE; Jones A; Marty L; Hardman CA
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():782056. PubMed ID: 34938244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Introducing the Open Affective Standardized Image Set (OASIS).
    Kurdi B; Lozano S; Banaji MR
    Behav Res Methods; 2017 Apr; 49(2):457-470. PubMed ID: 26907748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Affective and restorative valences for three environmental categories.
    Martínez-Soto J; Gonzales-Santos L; Barrios FA; Lena ME
    Percept Mot Skills; 2014 Dec; 119(3):901-23. PubMed ID: 25402210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Affective responses to dance.
    Christensen JF; Pollick FE; Lambrechts A; Gomila A
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2016 Jul; 168():91-105. PubMed ID: 27235953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Subjective Ratings of
    Hayn-Leichsenring GU; Lehmann T; Redies C
    Iperception; 2017; 8(3):2041669517715474. PubMed ID: 28694958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Mood-Improving Effect of Viewing Images of Nature and Its Neural Substrate.
    Yamashita R; Chen C; Matsubara T; Hagiwara K; Inamura M; Aga K; Hirotsu M; Seki T; Takao A; Nakagawa E; Kobayashi A; Fujii Y; Hirata K; Ikei H; Miyazaki Y; Nakagawa S
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 May; 18(10):. PubMed ID: 34065588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Liking versus Complexity: Decomposing the Inverted U-curve.
    Güçlütürk Y; Jacobs RH; van Lier R
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2016; 10():112. PubMed ID: 27047359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Global Image Properties Predict Ratings of Affective Pictures.
    Redies C; Grebenkina M; Mohseni M; Kaduhm A; Dobel C
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():953. PubMed ID: 32477228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Level of attention mediates the association between connectedness to nature and aesthetic evaluations of photographs of nature.
    Harrison N
    PeerJ; 2023; 11():e14926. PubMed ID: 36945354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.