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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8027706)

  • 1. The development of face recognition: featural or configurational processing?
    Baenninger M
    J Exp Child Psychol; 1994 Jun; 57(3):377-96. PubMed ID: 8027706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Face recognition in 4- to 7-year-olds: processing of configural, featural, and paraphernalia information.
    Freire A; Lee K
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2001 Dec; 80(4):347-71. PubMed ID: 11689035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Why 8-year-olds cannot tell the difference between Steve Martin and Paul Newman: factors contributing to the slow development of sensitivity to the spacing of facial features.
    Mondloch CJ; Dobson KS; Parsons J; Maurer D
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2004 Oct; 89(2):159-81. PubMed ID: 15388304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Holistic face processing is mature at 4 years of age: evidence from the composite face effect.
    de Heering A; Houthuys S; Rossion B
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2007 Jan; 96(1):57-70. PubMed ID: 17007869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Holistic processing for faces and cars in preschool-aged children and adults: evidence from the composite effect.
    Cassia VM; Picozzi M; Kuefner D; Bricolo E; Turati C
    Dev Sci; 2009 Mar; 12(2):236-48. PubMed ID: 19143797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sensitivity of 4-year-olds to featural and second-order relational changes in face distinctiveness.
    McKone E; Boyer BL
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2006 Jun; 94(2):134-62. PubMed ID: 16483596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. How face specialization emerges in the first months of life.
    Simion F; Leo I; Turati C; Valenza E; Dalla Barba B
    Prog Brain Res; 2007; 164():169-85. PubMed ID: 17920431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 7-11-year-old children show an advantage for matching and recognizing the internal features of familiar faces: evidence against a developmental shift.
    Bonner L; Burton M
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2004 Aug; 57(6):1019-29. PubMed ID: 15370514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Not all faces are processed equally: evidence for featural rather than holistic processing of one's own face in a face-imaging task.
    Greenberg SN; Goshen-Gottstein Y
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 Mar; 35(2):499-508. PubMed ID: 19271862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Recognition and sex categorization of adults' and children's faces: examining performance in the absence of sex-stereotyped cues.
    Wild HA; Barrett SE; Spence MJ; O'Toole AJ; Cheng YD; Brooke J
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2000 Dec; 77(4):269-91. PubMed ID: 11063629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Processes in object categorization during development--differences and similarities with face processing].
    Golly C; Blender A; Schwarzer G
    Z Exp Psychol; 2000; 47(4):269-80. PubMed ID: 11132403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Developmental differences in visual backward masking.
    Lawrence VW; Kee DW; Hellige JB
    Child Dev; 1980 Dec; 51(4):1081-9. PubMed ID: 7471917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Are representations of unfamiliar faces independent of encoding modality?
    Casey SJ; Newell FN
    Neuropsychologia; 2007 Feb; 45(3):506-13. PubMed ID: 16597451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparing infants' use of featural and spatiotemporal information in an object individuation task using a new event-monitoring design.
    Krøjgaard P
    Dev Sci; 2007 Nov; 10(6):892-909. PubMed ID: 17973803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Face inversion disrupts the perception of vertical relations between features in the right human occipito-temporal cortex.
    Goffaux V; Rossion B; Sorger B; Schiltz C; Goebel R
    J Neuropsychol; 2009 Mar; 3(Pt 1):45-67. PubMed ID: 19338716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Featural and configurational processes in the recognition of faces of different familiarity.
    Collishaw SM; Hole GJ
    Perception; 2000; 29(8):893-909. PubMed ID: 11145082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Children and adults recall the names of highly familiar faces faster than semantic information.
    Calderwood L; Burton AM
    Br J Psychol; 2006 Nov; 97(Pt 4):441-54. PubMed ID: 17018182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Featural and configural face processing strategies: evidence from a functional magnetic resonance imaging study.
    Lobmaier JS; Klaver P; Loenneker T; Martin E; Mast FW
    Neuroreport; 2008 Feb; 19(3):287-91. PubMed ID: 18303568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Modeling face identification processing in children and adults.
    Schwarzer G; Massaro DW
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2001 Jun; 79(2):139-61. PubMed ID: 11343406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of partial occlusion on newborns' face preference and recognition.
    Gava L; Valenza E; Turati C; de Schonen S
    Dev Sci; 2008 Jul; 11(4):563-74. PubMed ID: 18576964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.