Диссертация (1098979), страница 32
Текст из файла (страница 32)
2008. Vol.20(9). P.17271736179.Schendel K.L., Robertson L.C., Treisman A. Objects and theirlocations in exogenous cuing // Perception & Psychophysics. 2001. Vol.63(4). P.577-594180.Schweiger A., Zaidel E., Field T., Dobkin B. Right hemispherecontribution to lexical access in an aphasic with deep dyslexia // Brain andLanguage. 1989. Vol.37(1). P.73-89.181.Scott G.B., Hellige J.B. Hemispheric asymmetry for word naming:effects of frequency and regularity of pronunciation // Laterality. 1998.Vol.3(4). P.343-371182.Serences J.T., Boynton G.M. Feature-based attentional modulations inthe absence of direct visual stimulation // Neuron.
2007. Vol.55(2). P.301312183.Shalev L., Algom D. Stroop and Garner effects in and out of Posner'sbeam: reconciling two conceptions of selective attention // The Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2000.Vol.26(3). P.997-1017184.Shelley-Tremblay J., Mack A. Metacontrast masking and attention //Psychological Science. 1999. Vol. 10(6). P.508-515185.Shomstein S., Yantis S. Object-based attention: sensory modulation orpriority setting? // Perception & Psychophysics.
2002. Vol.64(1). P.41-51186.Sieroff E. Perception of visual letter strings in a case of left neglect :manipulation of the word form // Brain and Language. 1991. Vol.41(4).P.565-589187.Sieroff E., Posner M. Cueing spatial attention during processing ofwords and letter strings in normals // Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1988.Vol.5(4). P.451-472169188.Sosa Y., Teder-Sälejärvi W.A., McCourt M.E. Biases of spatialattention in vision and audition // Brain and Cognition. 2010. Vol.73. P.229–235.189.Soto D., Blanco M.J.
Spatial attention and object-based attention: acomparison within a single task // Vision Research. 2004. Vol.44(1). P.6981190.Sperling G. The information available in brief visual presentations //Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 1960. Vol.74(11). P.1-29191.Sperry R.W. Hemisphere deconnection and unity in consciousawareness // American Psychologist. 1968. Vol.23(10). P.723-733192.St George M., Kutas M., Martinez A., Sereno M.I. Semanticintegration in reading: engagement of the right hemisphere during discourseprocessing // Brain: a Journal of Neurology.
1999. Vol.122. Pt.7. P.13171325193.Starrfelt R., Petersen A., Vangkilde S. Don't words come easy? Apsychophysical exploration of word superiority // Frontiers in HumanNeuroscience. 2013. Vol.7. Article 519. www.frontiersin.org194.Stolz J., McCann R. S. Re-attending to the role of spatial attention invisual word processing // Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance.
2000. Vol.26(4) P.1320-1331195.Strauss E., Satz P., Wada J. An examination of the crowdinghypothesis in epileptic patients who have undergone the carotid amytal test// Neuropsychologia. 1990. Vol.28(11). P.1221-1227196.Tadros K., Dupuis-Roy N., Fiset D., Arguin M., Gosselin F.
Readinglaterally: the cerebral hemispheric use of spatial frequencies in visual wordrecognition // Journal of Vision. 2013. Vol.13(1):4, P.1-12197.Tata M.S. Attend to it now or lose it forever: selective attention,metacontrast masking and object substitution // Perception andPsychophysics. 2002. Vol. 64 (7).
P.1028-1038170198.Theeuwes J., Kramer A.F., Belopolsky A.V. Attentional set interactswith perceptual load in visual search // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.2004. Vol.11(4). P.697-702199.Tipper S.P., Weaver B., Jerreat L.M., Burak A.L. Object-based andenvironment-based inhibition of return of visual attention // Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1994.Vol.20(3). P.478-499200.Tipper S.P. The negative priming effect: inhibitory priming byignored objects // The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A.1985. Vol.
37(4). P.571-590201.Tipper S.P., Driver J. Negative priming between pictures and words ina selective attention task: evidence for semantic processing of ignoredstimuli // Memory & Cognition. 1988. Vol.16(1). P.64-70202.Tipper S.P., Weaver B., Jerreat L.M., Burak A.L. Object-based andenvironment-based inhibition of return of visual attention // The Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1994.Vol.20(3). P.478-499203.Treisman A.M., Gelade G. A feature-integration theory of attention //Cognitive Psychology.
1980. Vol. 12(1). P.97-136204.Underwood G., Boot D. Hemispheric asymmetries in developmentaldyslexia: cerebral structure or attentional strategies? // Journal of LiteracyResearch. 1986 Vol.18(3). P.219-228205.Van der Heijden A.H, Hagenaar R., Bloem W. Two stages inpostcategorical filtering and selection // Memory & Cognition. 1984.Vol.12(5). P.458-469206.Van Essen D.C., Newsome W..T, Bixby J.L. The pattern ofinterhemispheric connections and its relationship to extrastriate visual areasin the macaque monkey // The Journal of Neuroscience. 1982. Vol.2(3).P.265-283171207.Van Kleeck M.H.
Hemispheric differences in global versus localprocessing of hierarchical visual stimuli by normal subjects: new data and ameta-analysis of previous studies // Neuropsychologia. 1989. Vol.27(9).P.1165-1178208.Vecera S.P., Farah M.J. Does visual attention select objects orlocations? // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1994.
Vol.123(2). P.146-160209.Vos L., Whitman D. Maintaining perceptual constancy whileremaining vigilant: left hemisphere change blindness and right hemispherevigilance // Laterality. 2014. Vol.19(2). P.129-145210.Walker R., Mannan S., Maurer D., Pambakian A.L.M., Kennard C.The occulomotor distractor effect in normal and hemianopic vision //Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2000.Vol.267(1442). P. 431-438.211.Ward R., Duncan J., Shapiro K.
The Slow Time-Course of VisualAttention // Cognitive Psychology. 1996. Vol.30(1). P.79-109212.Watson S.E., Kramer A.F. Object-based visual selective attention andperceptual organization // Perception & Psychophysics. 1999. Vol.61(1).P.31-49213.Weekes N.Y., Capetillo-Cunliffe L., Rayman J., Iacoboni M., ZaidelE. Individual differences in the hemispheric specialization of dual routevariables // Brain and Language. 1999.
Vol.67(2). P.110-133.214.Weems S.A., Reggia J.A. Hemispheric specialization andindependence for word recognition: a comparison of three computationalmodels // Brain and Language. 2004. Vol.89(3). P.554-568215.Wegener D., Ehn F., Aurich M.K., Galashan F.O., Kreiter A.K.Feature-based attention and the suppression of non-relevant object features //Vision Research. 2008. Vol.48(27). P.2696-2707172216.Wei P., Kang G., Zhou X.
Attentional selection within and acrosshemispheres: implications for the perceptual load theory // ExperimentalBrain Research. 2013. Vol.225(1). P.37-45217.Wheeler D.D. Processes in word recognition // Cognitive Psychology.1970. Vol.1(1). P.59-85218.Whitehouse A.J.O., Bishop D.V.M. Hemispheric division of functionis the result of independent probabilistic biases // Neuropsychologia.
2009.Vol.47 (8-9). P.1938-1943219.Whitney C. How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printedword: The SERIOL model and selective literature review // PsychonomicBulletin & Review, 2001. Vol.8. P.221-243220.Whitney C. Location, location, location: how it affects theneighborhood (effect) // Brain and Language. 2011. Vol.118(3). P.90-104221.Whitney C., Cornelissen P. SERIOL Reading // Language andCognitive Processes. 2008. Vol.23(1). P.143-164.222.Whitney C., Lavidor M.
Why word length only matters in the leftvisual field // Neuropsychologia. 2004. Vol.42(12). P.1680-1688.223.Whitney C., Marton Y. The SERIOL2 Model of OrthographicProcessing // Self-Published Manuscript. 2013224.Wojciulik E., Kanwisher N. The generality of parietal involvement invisual attention // Neuron.
1999. Vol.23(4). P.747-764225.Wolfe J.M. From Perception to Consciousness: Searching with AnneTreisman - New York: Oxford University Press. 2012. 432 p.226.Wolfe J.M. What Can 1,000,000 Trials Tell Us About Visual Search?// Psychological Science. 1998. Vol. 9(1). P.33-39227.Wolfe J.M., Palmer E.M., Horowitz T.S. Reaction time distributionsconstrain models of visual search // Vision Research. 2010. Vol.50(14).P.1304-1311228.Wühr P. A Stroop Effect for Spatial Orientation // The Journal ofGeneral Psychology.
2007. Vol.134(3). P.285-294173229.Wuhr P. Cueing of object orientation facilitates attentional selection ofrelevant objects // Spatial Vision. 2002. Vol.19(5). P.459-477230.Wühr P., Frings C. A case for inhibition: visual attention suppressesthe processing of irrelevant objects // Journal of Experimental Psychology:General. 2008. Vol.137(1). P.116-130231.Wühr P., Frings C. Inhibition is picky: shape difference is a necessarycondition for attentional inhibition of irrelevant objects // PsychonomicBulletin & Review.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
