1 |
박형범 & 현주석 (2014). ex-Gaussian 모형을 활용한 인지적 과제의 반응시간 분포 분석. 감성과학, 17(2), 63-76.
|
2 |
Andrews, S., & Heathcote, A. (2001). Distinguishing common and task-specific processes in word identification: A matter of some moment?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 514-544.
DOI
|
3 |
Blanchette, I. (2006). Snakes, spiders, guns, and syringes: How specific are evolutionary constraints on the detection of threatening stimuli?. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(8), 1484-1504.
DOI
|
4 |
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433-436.
DOI
|
5 |
Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological review, 97(4), 523-547.
DOI
|
6 |
Chun, M. M., & Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?. Cognitive psychology, 30(1), 39-78.
DOI
|
7 |
Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18(11), 943-947.
DOI
|
8 |
Fox, E., Griggs, L., & Mouchlianitis, E. (2007). The detection of fear-relevant stimuli: Are guns noticed as quickly as snakes?. Emotion, 7(4), 691-696.
DOI
|
9 |
Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2010). Dual-target search for high and low prevalence X-ray threat targets. Visual Cognition, 18(10), 1439-1463.
DOI
|
10 |
Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., Thaibsyah, M., & Donnelly, N. (2014). The effects of increasing target prevalence on information processing during visual search. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 22(2), 469-475.
DOI
|
11 |
Gur, D., Rockette, H. E., Armfield, D. R., Blachar, A., Bogan, J. K., Brancatelli, G., et al. (2003). Prevalence Effect in a Laboratory Environment. Radiology, 228(1), 10-14.
DOI
|
12 |
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
|
13 |
Palmer, J., Huk, A. C., & Shadlen, M. N. (2005). The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. Journal of vision, 5(5), 376-404.
|
14 |
Penner-Wilger, M., Leth-Steensen, C., & LeFevre, J. A. (2002). Decomposing the problem-size effect: A comparison of response time distributions across cultures. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1160-1167.
DOI
|
15 |
Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (2000). A diffusion model account of masking in two-choice letter identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 26(1), 127-140.
DOI
|
16 |
Pourtois, G., Schwartz, S., Seghier, M. L., Lazeyras, F., & Vuilleumier, P. (2006). Neural systems for orienting attention to the location of threat signals: an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage, 31(2), 920-933.
DOI
|
17 |
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological review, 85(2), 59-108.
DOI
|
18 |
Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 446-461.
DOI
|
19 |
Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A Comparison of Sequential Sampling Models for Two-Choice Reaction Time. Psychological Review, 111(2), 333-367.
DOI
|
20 |
Ratcliff, R., Schmiedek, F., & McKoon, G. (2008). A diffusion model explanation of the worst performance rule for reaction time and IQ. Intelligence, 36(1), 10-17.
DOI
|
21 |
Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., Van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8(15), 1-17.
|
22 |
Schwarz, W. (2001). The ex-Wald distribution as a descriptive model of response times. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33(4), 457-469.
DOI
|
23 |
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive psychology, 12(1), 97-136.
DOI
|
24 |
Vincent, S. B. (1912). The function of the viborissae in the behavior of the white rat. Behavioral Monographs, 1(5).
|
25 |
Treisman, A. (1999). Solutions to the binding problem: Progress through controversy and convergence. Neuron, 24(1), 105-125.
DOI
|
26 |
Van Zandt, T. (2000). How to fit a response time distribution. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 7(3), 424-465.
DOI
|
27 |
Verghese, P. (2001). Visual search and attention: A signal detection theory approach. Neuron, 31(4), 523-535.
DOI
|
28 |
Wagenmakers, E. J., Van Der Maas, H. L., & Grasman, R. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 14(1), 3-22.
DOI
|
29 |
Wagenmakers, E. J., Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2008). A diffusion model account of criterion shifts in the lexical decision task. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(1), 140-159.
DOI
|
30 |
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided search 2.0 a revised model of visual search. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 1(2), 202-238.
DOI
|
31 |
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search?. Psychological Science, 9(1), 33-39.
DOI
|
32 |
Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435(7041), 439-440.
DOI
|
33 |
Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 623-638.
DOI
|
34 |
Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Serial deployment of attention during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 121-138.
DOI
|
35 |
Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20(2), 121-124.
DOI
|