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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9101457)

  • 1. Electrophysiologic indices of Stroop and Garner interference reveal linguistic influences on auditory and visual processing.
    Lew H; Chmiel R; Jerger J; Pomerantz JR; Jerger S
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1997 Apr; 8(2):104-18. PubMed ID: 9101457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Linguistic influences on the auditory processing of speech by children with normal hearing or hearing impairment.
    Jerger S; Elizondo R; Dinh T; Sanchez P; Chavira E
    Ear Hear; 1994 Apr; 15(2):138-60. PubMed ID: 8020647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Auditory conflict processing: behavioral and electrophysiologic manifestations of the stroop effect.
    Henkin Y; Yaar-Soffer Y; Gilat S; Muchnik C
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2010; 21(7):474-86. PubMed ID: 20807483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Childhood hearing impairment: auditory and linguistic interactions during multidimensional speech processing.
    Jerger S; Martin R; Pearson DA; Dinh T
    J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Aug; 38(4):930-48. PubMed ID: 7474984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Childhood hearing impairment: processing dependencies in multidimensional speech perception for an auditory level of analysis.
    Jerger S; Grimes A; Tran T; Chen C; Martin R
    Ear Hear; 1997 Dec; 18(6):513-35. PubMed ID: 9416453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Processes underlying dimensional interactions: correspondences between linguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions.
    Melara RD; Marks LE
    Mem Cognit; 1990 Sep; 18(5):477-95. PubMed ID: 2233261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Auditory stroop effects in children with hearing impairment.
    Jerger S; Stout G; Kent M; Albritton E; Loiselle L; Blondeau R; Jorgenson S
    J Speech Hear Res; 1993 Oct; 36(5):1083-96. PubMed ID: 8246474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Processing linguistic and perceptual dimensions of speech: interactions in speeded classification.
    Ben-Artzi E; Marks LE
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1999 Jun; 25(3):579-95. PubMed ID: 10385980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Developmental trends in the interaction between auditory and linguistic processing.
    Jerger S; Pirozzolo F; Jerger J; Elizondo R; Desai S; Wright E; Reynosa R
    Percept Psychophys; 1993 Sep; 54(3):310-20. PubMed ID: 8414890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Garner interference and temporal information processing.
    Zakay D; Bibi A; Algom D
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2014 Mar; 147():143-6. PubMed ID: 24054320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Stroop can occur without Garner interference: strategic and mandatory influences in multidimensional stimuli.
    Van Leeuwen C; Bakker L
    Percept Psychophys; 1995 Apr; 57(3):379-92. PubMed ID: 7770328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dimensional interactions in language processing: investigating directions and levels of crosstalk.
    Melara RD; Marks LE
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1990 Jul; 16(4):539-54. PubMed ID: 2142951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Developmental course of auditory processing interactions: Garner interference and Simon interference.
    Jerger S; Pearson DA; Spence MJ
    J Exp Child Psychol; 1999 Sep; 74(1):44-67. PubMed ID: 10433790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Different time courses of Stroop and Garner effects in perception--an event-related potentials study.
    Boenke LT; Ohl FW; Nikolaev AR; Lachmann T; Leeuwen Cv
    Neuroimage; 2009 May; 45(4):1272-88. PubMed ID: 19349240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: tests of the semantic coding hypothesis.
    Martino G; Marks LE
    Perception; 1999; 28(7):903-23. PubMed ID: 10664781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of recent word exposure on emotion-word Stroop interference: an ERP study.
    Gootjes L; Coppens LC; Zwaan RA; Franken IH; Van Strien JW
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2011 Mar; 79(3):356-63. PubMed ID: 21156188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A developmental study of the auditory Stroop effect.
    Jerger S; Martin RC; Pirozzolo FJ
    Brain Lang; 1988 Sep; 35(1):86-104. PubMed ID: 3179704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mapping symbols to response modalities: interference effects on Stroop-like tasks.
    Baldo JV; Shimamura AP; Prinzmetal W
    Percept Psychophys; 1998 Apr; 60(3):427-37. PubMed ID: 9599993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Findings from the Garner-paradigm do not support the "how" versus "what" distinction in the visual brain.
    Hesse C; Schenk T
    Behav Brain Res; 2013 Feb; 239():164-71. PubMed ID: 23174206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Auditory interference control in children with learning disability: An exploratory study.
    Thomas RM; Kaipa R; Ganesh AC
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2015 Dec; 79(12):2079-85. PubMed ID: 26432540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.