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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35616712)

  • 1. Emotions in motion: affective valence can influence compatibility effects with graspable objects.
    Scerrati E; Rubichi S; Nicoletti R; Iani C
    Psychol Res; 2023 Apr; 87(3):725-736. PubMed ID: 35616712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Flowers and spiders in spatial stimulus-response compatibility: does affective valence influence selection of task-sets or selection of responses?
    Yamaguchi M; Chen J; Mishler S; Proctor RW
    Cogn Emot; 2018 Aug; 32(5):1003-1017. PubMed ID: 28946804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms.
    Ambrosecchia M; Marino BF; Gawryszewski LG; Riggio L
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2015; 9():283. PubMed ID: 26042018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Do already grasped objects activate motor affordances?
    Iani C; Ferraro L; Maiorana NV; Gallese V; Rubichi S
    Psychol Res; 2019 Oct; 83(7):1363-1374. PubMed ID: 29627857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A pictorial version of the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task: sensitivity to generally affective and phobia-relevant stimuli in high and low spider fearful individuals.
    Huijding J; de Jong PJ
    Exp Psychol; 2005; 52(4):289-95. PubMed ID: 16302537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The prominent role of perceptual salience in object discrimination: overt discrimination of graspable side does not activate grasping affordances.
    Pellicano A; Binkofski F
    Psychol Res; 2021 Apr; 85(3):1234-1247. PubMed ID: 32036443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Exploring the Role of Action Consequences in the Handle-Response Compatibility Effect.
    Scerrati E; D'Ascenzo S; Lugli L; Iani C; Rubichi S; Nicoletti R
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2020; 14():286. PubMed ID: 32848666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Pixel asymmetry predicts between-object differences in the object-based compatibility effect.
    Azaad S; Laham SM
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2020 Dec; 73(12):2376-2388. PubMed ID: 32705950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Affective influences without approach-avoidance actions: on the congruence between valence and stimulus-response mappings.
    Yamaguchi M; Chen J
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2019 Apr; 26(2):545-551. PubMed ID: 30465269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Does a look of fear prompt to act? The effects of gaze and face emotional expression on manipulable objects.
    Scerrati E; Rubichi S; Iani C
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():927104. PubMed ID: 36118466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Critical bottom-up attentional factors in the handle orientation effect: asymmetric luminance transients and object-center eccentricity relative to fixation.
    Kostov K; Janyan A
    Psychol Res; 2021 Jun; 85(4):1685-1705. PubMed ID: 32248290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dissociating between object affordances and spatial compatibility effects using early response components.
    Wilf M; Holmes NP; Schwartz I; Makin TR
    Front Psychol; 2013; 4():591. PubMed ID: 24027552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Support from a TMS/MEP study for a direct link between positive/negative stimuli and approach/avoidance tendencies.
    Fini C; Fischer M; Bardi L; Brass M; Moors A
    Neuropsychologia; 2020 Jun; 143():107496. PubMed ID: 32407905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Is there a lower visual field advantage for object affordances? A registered report.
    Warman A; Clark A; Malcolm GL; Havekost M; Rossit S
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2024 Feb; ():17470218241230812. PubMed ID: 38279528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Spider-fearful individuals hesitantly approach threat, whereas depressed individuals do not persistently approach reward.
    Bartoszek G; Winer ES
    J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry; 2015 Mar; 46():1-7. PubMed ID: 25164091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Brain dynamics of visual attention during anticipation and encoding of threat- and safe-cues in spider-phobic individuals.
    Michalowski JM; Pané-Farré CA; Löw A; Hamm AO
    Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci; 2015 Sep; 10(9):1177-86. PubMed ID: 25608985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Affective states leak into movement execution: automatic avoidance of threatening stimuli in fear of spider is visible in reach trajectories.
    Buetti S; Juan E; Rinck M; Kerzel D
    Cogn Emot; 2012; 26(7):1176-88. PubMed ID: 22394168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus-response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects.
    Kostov K; Janyan A
    Cogn Process; 2015 Sep; 16 Suppl 1():287-91. PubMed ID: 26233530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The prepared emotional reflex: intentional preparation of automatic approach and avoidance tendencies as a means to regulate emotional responding.
    Eder AB; Rothermund K; Proctor RW
    Emotion; 2010 Aug; 10(4):593-8. PubMed ID: 20677876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of irrelevant response dimension on stimulus response compatibility.
    Shi K; Wang L
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2022 Mar; 223():103495. PubMed ID: 34999352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.