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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7162589)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Hemispheric differences in matching Stroop-type letter stimuli.
    Alivisatos B; Wilding J
    Cortex; 1982 Apr; 18(1):5-21. PubMed ID: 7187633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. What do lateralized displays tell us about visual word perception? A cautionary indication from the word-letter effect.
    Jordan TR; Patching GR
    Neuropsychologia; 2004; 42(11):1504-14. PubMed ID: 15246288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Hemispheric asymmetries for spatial frequency discrimination in a selective attention task.
    Proverbio AM; Zani A; Avella C
    Brain Cogn; 1997 Jul; 34(2):311-20. PubMed ID: 9220094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Hemisphere-specific processes in letter matching.
    Kirsner K
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1980 Feb; 6(1):167-79. PubMed ID: 6444990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Hemispheric asymmetries in a letter classification task with different typefaces.
    Umiltà C; Sava D; Salmaso D
    Brain Lang; 1980 Mar; 9(2):171-81. PubMed ID: 7363062
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reaction-time differences between the left and right hemispheres for face and letter discrimination in children and adults.
    Broman M
    Cortex; 1978 Dec; 14(4):578-91. PubMed ID: 738065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A processing division on the recency axis: the selective effects of visual field, match type, and direction of reading on terminal and pre-terminal items in a letter matching task.
    Kirsner K; Dunn JC; Schwartz S
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 1984 Mar; 55(2):157-78. PubMed ID: 6731003
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Development of differences in response latencies to right and left visual fields.
    Stillman R; DeRenzo E; Wolkowitz O; Allen H; Lehman RA; Wyatt RJ
    Brain Cogn; 1984 Jul; 3(3):335-42. PubMed ID: 6536332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The role of perceptual reference frames in visual field asymmetries.
    Robertson LC; Lamb MR
    Neuropsychologia; 1988; 26(1):145-52. PubMed ID: 3362340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sequential processing in hemispheric word recognition: the impact of initial letter discriminability on the OUP naming effect.
    Lindell AK; Nicholls ME; Kwantes PJ; Castles A
    Brain Lang; 2005 May; 93(2):160-72. PubMed ID: 15781304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. On the left and right hemisphere visual processing that precedes recognition.
    Avant LL; Thieman AA; Miller GW
    Neuropsychologia; 1993 Jul; 31(7):661-73. PubMed ID: 8371840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Normal-mirrored letter recognition, same-different judgment and cerebral dominance.
    Shimizu A; Endo M
    Folia Psychiatr Neurol Jpn; 1982; 36(1):59-74. PubMed ID: 7095668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Interaction between lateralization of memory and probe stimulus in the recognition of verbal and spatial visual stimuli.
    Berrini R; Capitani E; Della Sala S; Spinnler H
    Neuropsychologia; 1984; 22(4):517-20. PubMed ID: 6483179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effects of spatial arrangement of letter pairs in a name-matching task with unilateral and bilateral hemifield stimulation.
    Schmitz-Gielsdorf J; Willmes K; Vondenhoff C; Hartje W
    Neuropsychologia; 1988; 26(4):591-602. PubMed ID: 3405402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Global versus local processing: is there a hemispheric dichotomy?
    Boles DB
    Neuropsychologia; 1984; 22(4):445-55. PubMed ID: 6483171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Can an analytic/holistic dichotomy explain hemispheric asymmetries?
    Bagnara S; Boles DB; Simion F; Umiltà C
    Cortex; 1982 Apr; 18(1):67-77. PubMed ID: 7187635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Hemispheric differences for identification of words and nonwords in Urdu-English bilinguals.
    Adamson MM; Hellige JB
    Neuropsychology; 2006 Mar; 20(2):232-48. PubMed ID: 16594784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Feature similarity and laterality effects in visual masking.
    Hellige JB
    Neuropsychologia; 1983; 21(6):633-9. PubMed ID: 6664482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.