Do Subliminally Presented Objects Potentiate Motor Responses?
Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (2001). Response facilitation and inhibition in manual, vocal, and oculomotor performance: Evidence for a modality-unspecific mechanism. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 16-26.
Gibson, J. J. (1979/1987). Ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodale, M.A., Milner, A.D., Jakobson, L.S., & Carey, D.P. (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349, 154-156.
Jeeves, M. A., & Dixon, N. F. (1970). Hemisphere differences in response rates to visual stimuli. Psychonomic Science, 20, 249-251.
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Mishkin, M., & Ungerleider, L. G., & Macko, K. A. (1983). Object vision and spatial vision: Two cortical pathways. Trends in Neurosciences, 6, 414-417.
Norman, J. (2002). Two visual systems and two theories of perception: An attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 73-144.
Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2000). A central/peripheral asymmetry in subliminal priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1367-1382.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830-846.
Watanabe, K. (2002). Reflexive attentional shift caused by indexical pointing gesture. Journal of Vision, 2, 435a.
Weiskrantz, L.,Warrington, E. K., Sanders, M. D., & Marshall, J. (1974). Visual capacity in the hemianopic field following a restricted occipital ablation. Brain, 97, 709-728.
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2017 The New School Psychology Bulletin
© The New School Psychology Bulletin | firstname.lastname@example.org