Диссертация (1098979), страница 31
Текст из файла (страница 31)
On the efficiency of visual selective attention //Psychological Science. 1997. Vol.8(5). P.395-398128.Lavie N., Driver J. On the spatial extent of attention in object-basedvisual selection // Perception & Psychophysics. 1996. Vol.58(8). P.12381251163129.Lee J., Shomstein S. The differential effects of reward on space- andobject-based attentional allocation // The Journal of Neuroscience. 2013.Vol.33(26).
P.10625-10633130.Levine S.C., Koch-Weser M.P. Right hemisphere superiority in therecognition of famous faces // Brain and Cognition. 1982. Vol.1(1). P.10-22.131.Levy-Agresti J., Sperry R. W. Differential perceptual capacities inmajor and minor hemispheres // Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences. 1968. Vol.61. P.1151132.Lewis T.L., Maurer D. The development of the temporal and nasalvisual fields during infancy // Vision Research. 1992. Vol.32(5). P. 903-911.133.Li X., Logan G.D.
Object-based attention in Chinese readers ofChinese words: beyond Gestalt principles // Psychonomic Bulletin &Review. 2008. Vol.15(5). P.945-949134.Lindell A.K., Arend I., Ward R., Norton J., Wathan J. Hemisphericasymmetries in feature integration during visual word recognition //Laterality. 2007. Vol.12(6). P.543-558135.Lindell A.K., Nicholls M.E., Castles A.E. The effect of orthographicuniqueness and deviation points on lexical decisions: evidence fromunilateral and bilateral-redundant presentations // Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology.
A, Human Experimental Psychology. 2003.Vol.56(2). P.287-307136.Luck S.J., Hillyard S.A., Mangun G.R., Gazzaniga M.S. Independenthemispheric attentional systems mediate visual search in split-brain patients// Nature. 1989. Vol.342(6249). P.543-545.137.Luiga I., Bachmann T. Different effects of the two types of spatial pre-cueing: what precisely is "attention" in Di Lollo's and Enns' substitutionmasking theory? // Psychological Research. 2007. Vol.71(6). P.634-640138.Luiga I., Bachmann T., Pöder E. Metacontrast masking of singleletters in words and trigrams with varying loads on attention // Perception.2002. Vol.31. Supplement. P.79.164139.Macquistan A.D. Object-based allocation of visual attention inresponse to exogenous, but not endogenous, spatial precues // PsychonomicBulletin & Review.
1997. Vol.4(4). P.512-515140.Madrid G.J., Lavie N., Lavidor M. Asymmetrical perceptual load inlateralised word processing // European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.2010. Vol.22(7). P.1066-1077141.Marchetti F.M., Mewhort D.J.K. On the word-superiority effect //Psychological Research. 1986. Vol.48(1). P.23-35142.Marciano H., Yeshurun Y.
The effects of perceptual load in centraland peripheral regions of the visual field // Visual Cognition. 2011.Vol.19(3). P.367 391143.Marsolek C.J., Deason R.G. Hemispheric asymmetries in visual word-form processing: progress, conflict, and evaluating theories // Brain andLanguage. 2007. Vol.103(3). P.304-307144.Massol S., Midgley K.J., Holcomb P.J., Grainger J. When less ismore: Feedback, priming, and the pseudoword superiority effect // BrainResearch. 2011. Vol.1386.
P.153-164145.Maunsell J.H., Newsome W.T. Visual processing in monkeyextrastriate cortex // Annual Review of Neuroscience. 1987. Vol.10. P. 363401.146.McCann R.S., Folk C.L., Johnston J.C. The role of spatial attention invisual word processing // Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception & Performance.
1992. Vol.18(4). P.1015-1029147.McClelland J., Rumelhart D. An interactive activation model ofcontext effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings //Psychological Review. 1981. Vol.88(5). P.375-407148.McClelland J., Rumelhart D. An interactive activation model ofcontext effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings //Psychological Review.
1981. Vol.88(5). P.375-407.165149.Merikle P.M., Gorewich N.J. Spatial selectivity in vision: Field sizedepends upon noise size // Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 1979.Vol.14(5). P.343-346150.Mewhort D.J.K., Johns E.E. Some tests of the interactive-activationmodel for word identification // Psychological Research.
1988. Vol.50(3).P.135-147151.Michael J.A., Ojeda N. Visual field asymmetries in selective attention:Evidence from a modified search paradigm // Neuroscience Letters. 2005.Vol.388(2). P.65-70.152.Mondor T.A., Bryden M.P. On the relation between visual spatialattention and visual field asymmetries // Quarterly Journal of ExperimentalPsychology. 1992. Vol.44(3). P.529-555153.Montani V., Facoetti A., Zorzi M. Spatial attention in written wordperception // Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2014. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00042.154.Moore C.M., Egeth H.
How does feature-based attention affect visualprocessing? // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception andPerformance. 1998. Vol.24(4). P.1296-1310155.Nicholls M.E, Wood A.G. The contribution of attention to the rightvisual field advantage for word recognition // Brain and Cognition. 1998.Vol.38(3). P.339-357156.Nicholls M.E., Wood A.G., Hayes L. Cerebral asymmetries in thelevel of attention required for word recognition // Laterality.
2001. Vol.6(2).P.97-110157.Nicholls M.E.R., Bradshaw J.L., Mattingley J.B. Free-viewingperceptual asymmetries for the judgement of shade, numerosity and size //Neuropsychologia. 1999. Vol.37. P.307–314158.O'Craven K.M., Downing P.E., Kanwisher N. fMRI evidence forobjects as the units of attentional selection // Nature. 1999.
Vol.401(6753).P.584-587166159.Osugi T., Kawahara J.I. Attentional set protects visual marking fromvisual transients // Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Hove).2013. Vol.66(1). P.69-90160.Pantyushkov A.M., Horowitz T.S., Falikman M.V. Is there wordsuperiority in visual search? // Third International Conference on CognitiveScience. Abstracts. Moscow. 2008. Vol.1.
P.124-125161.Perea M., Lupker S.J. Transposed-Letter Confusability Effects inMasked Form Priming // In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupkerer (Eds.), MaskedPriming: The State of the Art. 2003. P.297-355. London: Psychology Press162.Peterson M.S., Kramer A.F., Wang R.F., Irwin D.E., McCarley J.S.Visual search has memory // Psychological Science. 2001. Vol. 12(4).P.287-292163.Pillow J., Rubin N. Perceptual completion across the vertical meridianand the role of early visual cortex // Neuron.
2002. Vol.33(5). P.805-813164.Posner M.I. Orienting of attention // Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 1980. Vol.32(1). P.3 - 25165.Posner M.I., Snyder C.R.R. Attention and cognitive control // In R.Solso (Ed.) Information processing and cognition. The Loyola Symposium.1975. Hillsdale, N.Y.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates166.Potter M.C., Nieuwenstein M., Strohminger N. Whole report versuspartial report in RSVP sentences // Journal of Memory and Language.
2008.Vol.58(4). P.907-915167.Poynter W., Roberts C. Hemispheric asymmetries in visual search //Laterality. 2012. Vol.17(6). P.711-726168.Rastle K., Coltheart M. Serial and strategic effects in reading aloud //Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.1999. Vol 25(2). P.482-503.169.Raymond J.E., Shapiro K.L., Arnell K.M.
Temporary suppression ofvisual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? // Journal of167Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance. 1992.Vol.18(3). P.849-860170.Reardon K.M., Kelly J.G., Matthews N. Bilateral attentionaladvantage on elementary visual tasks // Vision Research. 2009. Vol.49(7).P.691-701171.Rees G., Frith C.D., Lavie N. Modulating irrelevant motion perceptionby varying attentional load in an unrelated task // Science. 1997.Vol.278(5343). P.1616-1619172.Reicher G.M.
Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulnessof stimulus material // Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1969. Vol.81(2).P.275-280173.Reuter-Lorenz P.A., Baynes K. Modes of lexical access in thecallosotomized brain // Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1995. Vol.4(2).P.155-164174.Rock I., Gutman D. The effect of inattention on form perception // TheJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.1981.
Vol. 7(2). P.275-285175.Roper Z.J., Cosman J.D., Vecera S.P. Perceptual load correspondswith factors known to influence visual search // Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2013. Vol.39(5). P.13401351176.Rosch R.E., Bishop D.V., Badcock N.A. Lateralised visual attention isunrelated to language lateralisation, and not influenced by task difficulty - afunctional transcranial Doppler study // Neuropsychologia. 2012.
Vol.50(5).P.810-815177.Rumelhart D.E., McClelland J.L., Eds. Parallel distributed processing:Explorations in the microstructure of human cognition. 1986. Vol.1.Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press168178.Ruz M., Nobre A.C. Attention modulates initial stages of visual wordprocessing // Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
