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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

625 related items for PubMed ID: 15246288

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Words, hemispheres, and dissociable subsystems: the effects of exposure duration, case alternation, priming, and continuity of form on word recognition in the left and right visual fields.
    Ellis AW, Ansorge L, Lavidor M.
    Brain Lang; 2007 Dec; 103(3):292-303. PubMed ID: 17292463
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Right visual field advantage in parafoveal processing: evidence from eye-fixation-related potentials.
    Simola J, Holmqvist K, Lindgren M.
    Brain Lang; 2009 Nov; 111(2):101-13. PubMed ID: 19782390
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Evaluating a split fovea model of visual word recognition: effects of case alternation in the two visual fields and in the left and right halves of words presented at the fovea.
    Ellis AW, Brooks J, Lavidor M.
    Neuropsychologia; 2005 Nov; 43(8):1128-37. PubMed ID: 15817170
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Length, formats, neighbours, hemispheres, and the processing of words presented laterally or at fixation.
    Ellis AW.
    Brain Lang; 2004 Mar; 88(3):355-66. PubMed ID: 14967218
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Perceptual interactions between bilaterally presented words: what you get is often not what you see.
    Jordan TR, Patching GR.
    Neuropsychology; 2003 Oct; 17(4):566-77. PubMed ID: 14599270
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: effects of word length.
    Jordan TR, Paterson KB, Stachurski M.
    Cortex; 2009 Apr; 45(4):495-505. PubMed ID: 19231478
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Perception of words and non-words in the upper and lower visual fields.
    Darker IT, Jordan TR.
    Brain Lang; 2004 Jun; 89(3):593-600. PubMed ID: 15120550
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. The neural basis of the right visual field advantage in reading: an MEG analysis using virtual electrodes.
    Barca L, Cornelissen P, Simpson M, Urooj U, Woods W, Ellis AW.
    Brain Lang; 2011 Sep; 118(3):53-71. PubMed ID: 20932563
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Investigating hemispheric specialization in a novel face-word Stroop task.
    Anes MD, Kruer JL.
    Brain Lang; 2004 Apr; 89(1):136-41. PubMed ID: 15010245
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: effects of orthographic neighborhood size.
    Lavidor M, Hayes A, Shillcock R, Ellis AW.
    Brain Lang; 2004 Mar; 88(3):312-20. PubMed ID: 14967214
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Interhemispheric cooperation and non-cooperation during word recognition: evidence for callosal transfer dysfunction in dyslexic adults.
    Henderson L, Barca L, Ellis AW.
    Brain Lang; 2007 Dec; 103(3):276-91. PubMed ID: 17544495
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Effects of form familiarity on perception of words, pseudowords, and nonwords in the two cerebral hemispheres.
    Jordan TR, Redwood M, Patching GR.
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2003 May 15; 15(4):537-48. PubMed ID: 12803965
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Development of a viewing strategy during adaptation to an artificial central scotoma.
    Varsori M, Perez-Fornos A, Safran AB, Whatham AR.
    Vision Res; 2004 Oct 15; 44(23):2691-705. PubMed ID: 15358064
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Cerebral asymmetries in the level of attention required for word recognition.
    Nicholls ME, Wood AG, Hayes L.
    Laterality; 2001 Apr 15; 6(2):97-110. PubMed ID: 15513163
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Central fixations are inadequately controlled by instructions alone: implications for studying cerebral asymmetry.
    Jordan TR, Patching GR, Milner AD.
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 1998 May 15; 51(2):371-91. PubMed ID: 9621844
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Assessing effects of fixation demands on perception of lateralized words: A visual window technique for studying hemispheric asymmetry.
    Jordan TR, Patching GR.
    Neuropsychologia; 2006 May 15; 44(5):686-92. PubMed ID: 16223516
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: effects of word length during monocular viewing.
    Jordan TR, Paterson KB, Kurtev S, Xu M.
    Cortex; 2010 Jan 15; 46(1):100-5. PubMed ID: 19147129
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: effects of fixation location within words.
    Jordan TR, Paterson KB, Kurtev S, Xu M.
    Cortex; 2010 Mar 15; 46(3):298-309. PubMed ID: 19576580
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 32.