Influence of concurrent and terminal exposure conditions on the nature of perceptual adaptation.

[1]  B. Craske.  Adaptation to prisms: change in internally registered eye-position. , 1967, British journal of psychology.

[2]  I. Howard,et al.  Human Spatial Orientation , 1966 .

[3]  J. Gibson,et al.  Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of curved lines. , 1933 .

[4]  L. K. Canon.  Intermodality inconsistency of input and directed attention as determinants of the nature of adaptation. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  H. Pick,et al.  Visual capture produced by prism spectacles , 1965 .

[6]  J. Bossom,et al.  DECAY OF PRISM AFTEREFFECTS. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  I. Rock.  The nature of perceptual adaptation , 1969 .

[8]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Adaptation to prismatic displacements: hand position and target location. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  C. S. Harris.  Adaptation to Displaced Vision: Visual, Motor, or Proprioceptive Change? , 1963, Science.

[10]  L. K. Canon,et al.  Directed attention and maladaptive "adaptation" to displacement of the visual field. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  M M Cohen,et al.  Continuous versus Terminal Visual Feedback in Prism Aftereffects , 1967, Perceptual and motor skills.

[12]  C. S. Harris.  Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision. , 1965, Psychological review.

[13]  Allen L. Edwards,et al.  Experimental Design in Psychological Research. , 1951 .

[14]  C R HAMILTON,et al.  INTERMANUAL TRANSFER OF ADAPTATION TO PRISMS. , 1964, The American journal of psychology.