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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9340076)

  • 1. Stimulus modality and stimulus-response compatibility in absolute identification.
    Lacouture Y; Lacerte D
    Can J Exp Psychol; 1997 Jun; 51(2):165-70. PubMed ID: 9340076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effect of visual task difficulty and attentional direction on the detection of acoustic change as indexed by the Mismatch Negativity.
    Muller-Gass A; Stelmack RM; Campbell KB
    Brain Res; 2006 Mar; 1078(1):112-30. PubMed ID: 16497283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cross-modal compatibility effects with visual-spatial and auditory-verbal stimulus and response sets.
    Proctor RW; Dutta A; Kelly PL; Weeks DJ
    Percept Psychophys; 1994 Jan; 55(1):42-7. PubMed ID: 8036092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Stimulus spacing effects in duration perception are larger for auditory stimuli: data and a model.
    Penney TB; Brown GD; Wong JK
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2014 Mar; 147():97-104. PubMed ID: 23978665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Dissociating stimulus-response compatibility and modality compatibility in task switching.
    Friedgen E; Koch I; Stephan DN
    Mem Cognit; 2022 Oct; 50(7):1546-1562. PubMed ID: 35103924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Modality-specific selective attention attenuates multisensory integration.
    Mozolic JL; Hugenschmidt CE; Peiffer AM; Laurienti PJ
    Exp Brain Res; 2008 Jan; 184(1):39-52. PubMed ID: 17684735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The interplay of crossmodal attentional preparation and modality compatibility in cued task switching.
    Fintor E; Stephan DN; Koch I
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Apr; 72(4):955-965. PubMed ID: 29642783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The role of sensory-motor modality compatibility in language processing.
    Schaeffner S; Koch I; Philipp AM
    Psychol Res; 2016 Mar; 80(2):212-23. PubMed ID: 25813198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The psychological refractory period and the effect of stimulus discriminability.
    Tolkmitt FJ; Lunn SE
    Am J Psychol; 1973 Mar; 86(1):103-13. PubMed ID: 4742381
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Increased visual task difficulty enhances attentional capture by both visual and auditory distractor stimuli.
    Sugimoto F; Katayama J
    Brain Res; 2017 Jun; 1664():55-62. PubMed ID: 28377160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility.
    Stephan DN; Koch I
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2010 Jul; 36(4):1075-81. PubMed ID: 20565224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Common neural substrates for response selection across modalities and mapping paradigms.
    Jiang Y; Kanwisher N
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2003 Nov; 15(8):1080-94. PubMed ID: 14709228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Tactile Stimuli Increase Effects of Modality Compatibility in Task Switching.
    Stephan DN; Koch I
    Exp Psychol; 2015; 62(4):276-84. PubMed ID: 26421450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation.
    Stephan DN; Koch I
    Psychol Res; 2016 Nov; 80(6):935-943. PubMed ID: 26377338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Procedural differences in processing intact and degraded stimuli.
    Los SA
    Mem Cognit; 1994 Mar; 22(2):145-56. PubMed ID: 8035691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality.
    Fintor E; Stephan DN; Koch I
    Psychol Res; 2018 Jan; 82(1):121-133. PubMed ID: 28578525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Differences in the neural basis of automatic auditory and visual time perception: ERP evidence from an across-modal delayed response oddball task.
    Chen Y; Huang X; Luo Y; Peng C; Liu C
    Brain Res; 2010 Apr; 1325():100-11. PubMed ID: 20170647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Brain-behavior relationships: evidence from practice effects in spatial stimulus-response compatibility.
    Iacoboni M; Woods RP; Mazziotta JC
    J Neurophysiol; 1996 Jul; 76(1):321-31. PubMed ID: 8836228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The role of input-output modality compatibility in task switching.
    Stephan DN; Koch I
    Psychol Res; 2011 Nov; 75(6):491-8. PubMed ID: 21858664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Modality compatibility in task switching depends on processing codes and task demands.
    Friedgen E; Koch I; Stephan DN
    Psychol Res; 2021 Sep; 85(6):2346-2363. PubMed ID: 32895726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.