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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 830185)

  • 1. The familiarity effect for single-letter pairs.
    Ambler BA; Proctor JD
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1976 May; 2(2):222-34. PubMed ID: 830185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Effect of familiarity of Multielement matching.
    Regan JE
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1981 Dec; 7(6):1273-82. PubMed ID: 6458651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. On time differences in searching for letters in words and nonwords: do they emerge during the initial encoding or the subsequent scan?
    Johnson NF; Carnot MJ
    Mem Cognit; 1990 Jan; 18(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 2314225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Analysis of the eye movement patterns in visual search tasks: effect of familiarity and stimulus features].
    Macedo EC; Covre P; Orsati FT; Oliveira MO; Schwartzman JS
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2007; 70(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 17505715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process?
    Vecera SP; Farah MJ
    Percept Psychophys; 1997 Nov; 59(8):1280-96. PubMed ID: 9401461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Familiarity of background characters in visual scanning.
    Reicher GM
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1976 Nov; 2(4):522-30. PubMed ID: 1011001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Letter detection with rapid serial visual presentation: evidence against word superiority at feature extraction.
    Krueger LE; Shapiro RG
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1979 Nov; 5(4):657-673. PubMed ID: 528966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Neuronal responses related to visual recognition.
    Rolls ET; Perrett DI; Caan AW; Wilson FA
    Brain; 1982 Dec; 105 (Pt 4)():611-46. PubMed ID: 6890395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Does meaning matter? The impact of word knowledge on lateral masking.
    Fine EM
    Optom Vis Sci; 2001 Nov; 78(11):831-8. PubMed ID: 11763257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Temporal separation of two part-letter arrays and size changes in a nonmasking work-superiority effect.
    Solman RT
    Perception; 1987; 16(5):655-69. PubMed ID: 3451193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Visual detection of multi-letter patterns.
    Staller JD; Lappin JS
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1981 Dec; 7(6):1258-72. PubMed ID: 6458650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Tactual and name matching by blind children.
    Millar S
    Br J Psychol; 1977 Aug; 68(3):377-87. PubMed ID: 890225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Familiarity does not affect the unilateral field advantage for repetition detection.
    Butcher SJ; Cavanagh P
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2012 Aug; 74(6):1216-25. PubMed ID: 22532384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of familiarity and category contrast on stimulus and response priming.
    Weisgerber SA; Johnson PJ
    Percept Psychophys; 1989 Dec; 46(6):592-602. PubMed ID: 2587189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Recognition time for letters and nonletters: effects of serial position, array size, and processing order.
    Mason M
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1982 Oct; 8(5):724-38. PubMed ID: 6218232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Differentiation of holistic processing in the time course of letter recognition.
    Lachmann T; van Leeuwen C
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):121-9. PubMed ID: 18586218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.