Visual Search for Conjunctions of Physical and Numerical Size Shows That They Are Processed Independently
暂无分享,去创建一个
Thomas J. Faulkenberry | Thomas J Faulkenberry | Kenith V. Sobel | Kenith V Sobel | Amrita M Puri | Taylor D Dague | Amrita M. Puri | Taylor D. Dague
[1] I. Arend,et al. Choosing the larger versus choosing the smaller: Asymmetries in the size congruity effect. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[2] H. Heinze,et al. On the interaction of numerical and size information in digit comparison: a behavioral and event-related potential study , 1998, Neuropsychologia.
[3] Thomas J. Faulkenberry,et al. Response trajectories capture the continuous dynamics of the size congruity effect. , 2016, Acta psychologica.
[4] Wolf Schwarz,et al. Numerical distance effects in visual search , 2012, Attention, perception & psychophysics.
[5] D. Algom,et al. Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgment of numerals: The role of attention. , 1999 .
[6] G. Michael,et al. Salience-based progression of visual attention , 2011, Behavioural Brain Research.
[7] Derek Besner,et al. Ideographic and alphabetic processing in skilled reading of English , 1979, Neuropsychologia.
[8] L. E. Krueger. The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.
[9] Gary Lupyan,et al. Perceptual processing is facilitated by ascribing meaning to novel stimuli , 2008, Current Biology.
[10] Howard E Egeth,et al. Biased competition and visual search: the role of luminance and size contrast , 2007, Psychological research.
[11] Evan F. Risko,et al. Paying attention to attention: evidence for an attentional contribution to the size congruity effect , 2013, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.
[12] H. Nothdurft,et al. Salience-controlled visual search: Are the brightest and the least bright targets found by different processes? , 2006 .
[13] John C. Norcross,et al. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct , 2013 .
[14] Matthew P. Gerrie,et al. Individual differences in working memory capacity and visual search: The roles of top-down and bottom-up processing , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.
[15] E. Reingold,et al. Attentional guidance during visual search among patients with schizophrenia , 2011, Schizophrenia Research.
[16] Dietmar Heinke,et al. Bottom-up guidance to grouped items in conjunction search: Evidence for color grouping , 2012, Vision Research.
[17] Jan Theeuwes,et al. SEARCH FOR A CONJUNCTIVELY DEFINED TARGET CAN BE SELECTIVELY LIMITED TO A COLOR-DEFINED SUBSET OF ELEMENTS , 1995 .
[18] M. Masson,et al. Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.
[19] M. Pomplun,et al. Distractor Ratio Influences Patterns of Eye Movements during Visual Search , 2000, Perception.
[20] Tom Verguts,et al. The size congruity effect: Is bigger always more? , 2011, Cognition.
[21] J. Braun. Visual search among items of different salience: removal of visual attention mimics a lesion in extrastriate area V4 , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.
[22] Harold Bekkering,et al. Interaction between numbers and size during visual search , 2016, Psychological research.
[23] G. Lupyan. The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more) , 2008, Cognition.
[24] Vincent Walsh. A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[25] J. Jonides,et al. A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or as digit , 1972 .
[26] W. Gevers,et al. Beyond left and right: Automaticity and flexibility of number-space associations , 2016, Psychonomic bulletin & review.
[27] Kenith V. Sobel,et al. Target grouping in visual search for multiple digits , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.
[28] F. Wilkinson,et al. Distractor Ratio and Grouping Processes in Visual Conjunction Search , 1992, Perception.
[29] U. Neisser. VISUAL SEARCH. , 1964, Scientific American.
[30] R. Engle,et al. Working memory capacity and the top-down control of visual search: Exploring the boundaries of "executive attention". , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[31] R. Cohen Kadosh,et al. Sequential Analysis of the Numerical Stroop Effect Reveals Response Suppression , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[32] A. Henik,et al. Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks , 1982, Memory & cognition.
[33] L. Boroditsky,et al. Time in the mind: Using space to think about time , 2008, Cognition.
[34] M. Proulx. Bottom-up guidance in visual search for conjunctions. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.
[35] Thomas J. Faulkenberry,et al. Bottom-up and top-down attentional contributions to the size congruity effect , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.
[36] Tamaryn Menneer,et al. Visual similarity is stronger than semantic similarity in guiding visual search for numbers , 2014 .
[37] H. Egeth,et al. Goal-directed guidance of attention: evidence from conjunctive visual search. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.
[38] Michael J. Proulx,et al. Size Matters: Large Objects Capture Attention in Visual Search , 2010, PloS one.
[39] Kyle R Cave,et al. Roles of salience and strategy in conjunction search. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.
[40] S. Hochstein,et al. How Serial is Serial Processing in Vision? , 1989, Perception.
[41] S. Thompson-Schill,et al. Conceptual Penetration of Visual Processing , 2010, Psychological science.
[42] J. Wolfe,et al. What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
[43] Bodo Winter,et al. Of magnitudes and metaphors: Explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number , 2015, Cortex.
[44] J. Duncan. Category effects in visual search: A failure to replicate the “oh-zero” phenomenon , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.