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.
2. The role of detail information in the recognition of complex pictorial stimuli. Weaver GE; Stanny CJ J Gen Psychol; 1984 Oct; 111(2ND Half):185-99. PubMed ID: 6512514 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Constraints on effective pictorial and verbal elaboration. Stein BS; Brock KF; Ballard DR; Vye NJ Mem Cognit; 1987 Jul; 15(4):281-90. PubMed ID: 3670050 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Pictorial cues and enhancement of patient recall of instructions or information. Reed LA; Hoffman LG J Am Optom Assoc; 1986 Apr; 57(4):312-5. PubMed ID: 3700955 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Picture rehearsal: an effect of selectively attending to pictures no longer in view. Graefe TM; Watkins MJ J Exp Psychol Hum Learn; 1980 Mar; 6(2):156-62. PubMed ID: 7373247 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Memory for location and picture cues at ages two and three. Horn HA; Myers NA Child Dev; 1978 Sep; 49(3):845-56. PubMed ID: 710194 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effects of label distinctiveness and label testing on recognition of complex pictures. Bartlett JC; Till RE; Fields WC Am J Psychol; 1980 Sep; 93(3):505-27. PubMed ID: 7212128 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of varying modality, surface features, and retention interval on priming in word-fragment completion. Roediger HL; Blaxton TA Mem Cognit; 1987 Sep; 15(5):379-88. PubMed ID: 3670057 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Visual persistence at both onset and offset of stimulation. Wilson JT Percept Psychophys; 1981 Oct; 30(4):353-6. PubMed ID: 7322813 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Perception and comprehension of some pictorial symbols as a function of familiarity and nature of depicted object. Mishra RC Percept Mot Skills; 1982 Dec; 55(3 Pt 1):962. PubMed ID: 6186982 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Recall of common and distinctive features of verbal and pictorial stimuli. Gati I; Tversky A Mem Cognit; 1987 Mar; 15(2):97-100. PubMed ID: 3683182 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The effects of different types of retrieval cues on the recall of names of famous faces. Hanley JR; Cowell ES Mem Cognit; 1988 Nov; 16(6):545-55. PubMed ID: 3193886 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Evidence for processing of constituent single- and multiletter codes: support for multilevel coding in word perception. Greenberg SN; Vellutino FR Mem Cognit; 1988 Jan; 16(1):54-63. PubMed ID: 3339999 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Geometry of Pictorial Relief. Koenderink JJ; van Doorn AJ; Wagemans J Annu Rev Vis Sci; 2018 Sep; 4():451-474. PubMed ID: 30222535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Word and picture identification: is representational parsimony possible? Kirsner K; Milech D; Stumpfel V Mem Cognit; 1986 Sep; 14(5):398-408. PubMed ID: 3773706 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Selective perception without confounding contributions of decision and memory. Lupker SJ; Massaro DW Percept Psychophys; 1979 Jan; 25(1):60-9. PubMed ID: 432092 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Visual time compression: spatial and tmeporal cues. Scanlan LA Hum Factors; 1975 Aug; 17(4):337-45. PubMed ID: 1205473 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The plausibility effect: lexical priming or sentential processing? Ratcliff JE Mem Cognit; 1987 Nov; 15(6):482-96. PubMed ID: 3695942 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Cue utilization and encoding specificity in picture recognition by older adults. Park DC; Puglisi JT; Smith AD; Dudley WN J Gerontol; 1987 Jul; 42(4):423-5. PubMed ID: 3598091 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]