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.
259 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6460835)
1. Application of geometric models to letter recognition: distance and density. Appelman IB; Mayzner MS J Exp Psychol Gen; 1982 Mar; 111(1):60-100. PubMed ID: 6460835 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Identification confusions among letters of the alphabet. Gervais MJ; Harvey LO; Roberts JO J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1984 Oct; 10(5):655-66. PubMed ID: 6238125 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Interaction between two letters in visual perception. Budohoska W; Grabowska A; Jablonowska K Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars); 1975; 35(2):115-23. PubMed ID: 1180133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Density versus feature weights as predictors of visual identifications: comment on Appelman and Mayzner. Krumhansl CL J Exp Psychol Gen; 1982 Mar; 111(1):101-8. PubMed ID: 6460834 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Experimental test of contemporary mathematical models of visual letter recognition. Townsend JT; Ashby FG J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1982 Dec; 8(6):834-54. PubMed ID: 6218235 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Matching performance and the similarity structure of the stimulus set. Crist WB J Exp Psychol Gen; 1981 Sep; 110(3):269-96. PubMed ID: 6457077 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How crowding affects letter confusion. Liu L; Arditi A Optom Vis Sci; 2001 Jan; 78(1):50-5. PubMed ID: 11233335 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Using geometric moments to explain human letter recognition near the acuity limit. Liu L; Klein SA; Xue F; Zhang JY; Yu C J Vis; 2009 Jan; 9(1):26.1-18. PubMed ID: 19271896 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Similarity, confusability, and the density hypothesis. Corter JE J Exp Psychol Gen; 1987 Sep; 116(3):238-49. PubMed ID: 2957458 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Differential effects of concurrent letters on visual field differences in letter recognition. Hatta T Int J Neurosci; 1982 Sep; 17(2):129-34. PubMed ID: 7166476 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Letter perception: from pixels to pandemonium. Grainger J; Rey A; Dufau S Trends Cogn Sci; 2008 Oct; 12(10):381-7. PubMed ID: 18760658 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Target letter inclusion in single and multiple word substrings and identification accuracy. Chastain G J Gen Psychol; 1988 Apr; 115(2):141-9. PubMed ID: 3385413 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Studies of letter identification using qualitative error analysis: effects of speed stress, tachistoscopic presentation, and word context. Stanovich KE J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1979 Nov; 5(4):713-33. PubMed ID: 528969 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Representation of letters when mislocation errors occur. Chastain G J Gen Psychol; 1990 Apr; 117(2):143-51. PubMed ID: 2366047 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A fuzzy logical model of letter identification. Oden GC J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1979 May; 5(2):336-52. PubMed ID: 528944 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Letter information and orthographic context in word perception. Massaro DW J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1979 Nov; 5(4):595-609. PubMed ID: 528961 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Induced coding strategies and hemispheric differences in matching letter pairs. Edwards J; Venables PH Neuropsychologia; 1982; 20(6):669-74. PubMed ID: 7162589 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Letter identification as a function of type of perceptual limitation and type of attribute. Garner WR; Haun F J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1978 May; 4(2):199-209. PubMed ID: 660095 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Generation of visual representations. Yaworsky KB; Johnson N J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1981 Oct; 7(5):978-84. PubMed ID: 6457118 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]