Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763.Google Scholar

Abrahamse, E., van Dijck, J. P., & Fias, W. (2016). How does working memory enable number-induced spatial biases? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 977.Google Scholar

Abrams, J., Nizam, A., & Carrasco, M. (2012). Isoeccentric locations are not equivalent: The extent of the vertical meridian asymmetry. Vision Research, 52(1), 70–78.Google Scholar

Abrams, R. A., & Dobkin, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 467–477.Google ScholarPubMed

Actis-Grosso, R., Bastianelli, A., & Stucchi, N. (2008). Direction of perceptual displacement of a moving target’s starting and vanishing points: The key role of velocity. Japanese Psychological Research, 50, 253–263.Google Scholar

Actis-Grosso, R., & Stucchi, N. (2003). Shifting the start: Backward mislocation of the initial position of a motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 675–691.Google ScholarPubMed

Adamian, N., & Cavanagh, P. (2017). Fröhlich effect and delays of visual attention. Journal of Vision, 17, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aginsky, V., Harris, C., Rensink, R., & Beusmans, J. (1997). Two strategies for learning a route in a driving simulator. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aglioti, S. M., DeSouza, J. F. X., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5, 679–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aiello, M., Jacquin-Courtois, S., Merola, S., Ottaviani, T., Tomaiuolo, F., Bueti, D., et al. (2012). No inherent left and right side in human mental number line: Evidence from right brain damage. Brain, 135(8), 2492–2505.Google Scholar

Akutsu, H., McGraw, P. V., & Levi, D. M. (1992). Alignment of separated patches: Multiple location tags. Vision Research, 39, 789–801.Google Scholar

Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2003). The “flash-lag” effect occurs in audition and cross-modally. Current Biology, 13, 59–63.Google Scholar

Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2004a). No direction-specific bimodal facilitation for audiovisual motion detection. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2004b). The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Current Biology, 14, 257–262.Google Scholar

Alais, D., Newell, F., & Mamassian, P. (2010). Multisensory processing in review: From physiology to behavior. Seeing and Perceiving, 23, 3–38.Google Scholar

Albouy, P., Lévệque, Y., Hyde, K. L., Bouchet, P., Tillmann, B., & Caclin, A. (2015). Boosting pitch encoding with audiovisual interactions in congenital amusia. Neuropsychologia, 67, 111–120.Google Scholar

Alink, A., Singer, W., & Muckli, L. (2008). Capture of auditory motion by vision is represented by an activation shift from auditory to visual motion cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 2690–2697.Google Scholar

Allen, G. L. (1999). Spatial abilities, cognitive maps, and wayfinding. In Golledge, R. G. (Ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 46–80). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, G. L., & Kirasic, K. C. (1985). Effects of the cognitive organization of route knowledge on judgements of macrospatial distance. Memory & Cognition, 13, 218–227.Google Scholar

Allen, P. G., & Kolers, P. A. (1981). Sensory specificity of apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1318–1326.Google Scholar

Allport, G. W., 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Allred, S. R., Crawford, L. E., Duffy, S., & Smith, J. (2016). Working memory and spatial judgments: Cognitive load increases the central tendency bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1039-0Google Scholar

Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(3), 122–131.Google Scholar

Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2009). Spatial ensemble statistics are efficient codes that can be represented with reduced attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(18), 7345–7350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Amedi, A., von Kriegstein, K., van Atteveldt, N. M., Beauchamp, M. S., & Naumer, M. J. (2004). Functional imaging of human crossmodal identification and object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 166, 559–571.Google Scholar

Amirshahi, S. A., Hayn-Leichsenring, G. U., Denzler, J., & Redies, C. (2014). Evaluating the rule of thirds in photographs and paintings. Art & Perception, 2, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Amorapanth, P., Kranjec, A., Bromberger, B., Lehet, M., Widick, P., Woods, A. J., et al. (2012). Language, perception, and the schematic representation of spatial relations. Brain and Language, 120, 226–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Amorapanth, P. X., Widick, P., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). The neural basis for spatial relations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1739–1753.Google Scholar

Amorim, M. A., Lang, W., Lindinger, G., Mayer, D., Deecke, L., & Berthoz, A. (2000). Modulation of spatial orientation processing by mental imagery instructions: A MEG study of representational momentum. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 569–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Anderson, D. (2007). Consciousness and realism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14, 1–17.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Angelaki, D., McHenry, M., Dickman, J. D., Newlands, S., & Hess, B. (1999). Computation of inertial motion: Neural strategies to resolve ambiguous otolith information. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 316–327.Google Scholar

Angelaki, D. E., Shaikh, A. G., Green, A. M., & Dickman, J. D. (2004). Neurons compute internal models of the physical laws of motion. Nature, 430(6999), 560–564.Google Scholar

Ansorge, U., Carbone, E., Becker, S. I., & Turatto, M. (2010). Attentional capture by motion onset is spatially imprecise. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 62–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anstis, S. (2007). The flash-lag effect during illusory chopstick motion. Perception, 36, 1043–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anstis, S. (2010). Illusions of time, space, and motion: Flash-lag meets chopsticks and reversed phi. In Nijhawan, R. & Khurana, B. (Eds.), Space and time in perception and action (pp. 408–421). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Antović, M., Bennett, A., & Turner, M. (2013). Running in circles or moving along lines: Conceptualization of musical elements in sighted and blind children. Musicae Scientiae, 17, 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Appelle, S. (1972). Perception and discrimination as a function of orientation: The “oblique effect” in man and animals. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 266–278.Google Scholar

Appleyard, D. (1969). Why buildings are known. Environment and Behavior, 1, 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arduino, L. S., Previtali, P., & Girelli, L. (2010). The centre is not in the middle: Evidence from line and word bisection. Neuropsychologia, 48, 2140–2446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariely, D. (2001). Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science, 12(2), 157–162.Google Scholar

Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnheim, R. (1982). The power of the center. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Arnheim, R. (1986). New essays on the psychology of art. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Arnheim, R. (1988). Visual dynamics. Scientific American, 76, 585–591.Google Scholar

Arnheim, R. (2006). Film as art (50th anniversary edition). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Arnold, D. H., Clifford, C. W. G., & Wenderoth, P. (2001). Asynchronous processing in vision: Color leads motion. Current Biology, 11, 596–600.Google Scholar

Arnold, D. H., Durant, S., & Johnston, A. (2003). Latency differences and the flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 43, 1829–1835.Google Scholar

Arnold, D. H., Ong, Y., & Roseboom, W. (2009). Simple differential latencies modulate, but do not cause the flash-lag effect. Journal of Vision, 9(5), 4.Google Scholar

Arrighi, R., Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2005). Neural latencies do not explain the auditory and audio-visual flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 45, 2917–2925.Google Scholar

Arrighi, R., Marini, F., & Burr, D. (2009). Meaningful auditory information enhances perception of visual biological motion. Journal of Vision, 9, 25.Google Scholar

Arrington, C. M., Carr, T. H., Mayer, A. R., & Rao, S. M. (2000). Neural mechanisms of visual attention: Object-based selection of a region in space. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(supplement 2), 106.Google Scholar

Arzy, S., Adi-Japha, E., & Blanke, O. (2009). The mental time line: An analogue of the mental number line in the mapping of life events. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 781–785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aschersleben, G., & Müsseler, J. (1999). Dissociations in the timing of stationary and moving stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1709–1720.Google Scholar

Asher, M. F., Tolhurst, D. J., Troscianko, T., & Gilchrist, I. (2013). Regional effects of clutter on human target detection performance. Journal of Vision, 13(5): 1–15.Google Scholar

Ashida, H. (2004). Action-specific extrapolation of target motion in human visual system. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1515–1524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Atmanspacher, H. (2007) Contextual emergence from physics to cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14, 18–36.Google Scholar

Atmanspacher, H., & Kronz, F. (1998). Many realisms. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, 91, 31–43.Google Scholar

Attneave, F. (1959). Comments: In defense of homunculi. In Rosenblith, W. A. (Ed.), Sensory communication: Contributions to the symposium on principels of sensoty comunication, July 19–August 1 (pp. 777–781). Cambrdidge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Au, R. K. C., & Watanabe, K. (2013). Object motion continuity and the flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 92, 19–25.Google Scholar

Aubert, H. (1861). Eine scheinbare bedeutende Drehung von Objekten bei Neigung des Kopfes nach rechts oder links. Virchows Archiv fur pathologische Anatomie und Physiologic und fur klinische Medizin, 20, 381–393.Google Scholar

Auerbach, E., Beller, A. J., Henkes, H. E., & Goldhaber, G. (1961). Electric potentials of retina and cortex of cats evoked by monocular and binocular photic stimulation. Vision Research, 1(1–2), 166IN5–182IN8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Avant, L. L. (1965). Vision in the Ganzfeld. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 246–258.Google Scholar

Avery, G., & Day, R. (1969). Basis of the horizontal vertical illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 376–380.Google Scholar

Avrahami, J., Argaman, T., & Weiss-Chasum, D. (2004). The mysteries of the diagonal: Gender-related perceptual asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1405–1417.Google Scholar

Awh, E., Armstrong, K. M., & Moore, T. (2006). Visual and oculomotor selection: Links, causes and implications for spatial attention. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 124–130.Google Scholar

Awh, E., & Pashler, H. (2000). Evidence for split attentional foci. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 834–846.Google Scholar

Aznar-Casanova, J. A., Torrents, A., & Torro-Alves, N. T. (2008). The role of the vertical disparities in the Oblique Effect. Psychology & Neuroscience, 1(2), 85–98.Google Scholar

Baars, B. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, D. R., Buxtorf, K., Strik, W. K., Neuhoff, J. G., & Seifritz, E. (2011). Evidence for impaired sound intensity processing in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37(2), 426–431.Google Scholar

Bach, D. R., Furl, N., Barnes, G., & Dolan, R. J. (2015). Sustained magnetic responses in temporal cortex reflect instantaneous significance of approaching and receding sounds. PLoS One, 10(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134060Google Scholar

Bach, D. R., Neuhoff, J. G., Perrig, W., & Seifritz, E. (2009). Looming sounds as warning signals: The function of motion cues. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74(1), 28–33.Google Scholar

Bach, D. R., Schachinger, H., Neuhoff, J. G., Esposito, F., Di Salle, F., Lehmann, C., … Seifritz, E. (2008). Rising sound intensity: An intrinsic warning cue activating the amygdala. Cerebral Cortex, 18(1), 145–150.Google Scholar

Bachmann, T. (1984). The process of perceptual retouch: Nonspecific afferent activation dynamics in explaining visual masking. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 69–84.Google Scholar

Bachmann, T. (1999). Twelve spatiotemporal phenomena and one explanation. Advances in Psychology, 129, 173–206.Google Scholar

Bachmann, T. (2007). Binding binding: Departure points for a different version of the perceptual retouch theory. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 41–55.Google Scholar

Bachmann, T. (2010). Priming and retouch in flash-lag and other phenomena of the streaming perceptual input. In Nijhawan, R. & Khurana, B. (Eds.), Space and time in perception and action (pp. 536–557). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bachmann, T., & Kalev, K. (1997). Adjustment of collinearity of laterally moving, vertically separated lines reveals compression of subjective distance as a function of aperture size and speed of motion. Perception, 26, 119–120.Google Scholar

Bachmann, T., Luiga, I., Põder, E., & Kalev, K. (2003). Perceptual acceleration of objects in stream: Evidence from flash-lag displays. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 279–297.Google Scholar

Bachmann, T., Murd, C., & Põder, E. (2012). Flash-lag effect: Complicating motion extrapolation of the moving reference-stimulus paradoxically augments the effect. Psychological Research, 76, 654–666.Google Scholar

Bachmann, T., & Põder, E. (2001). Change in feature space is not necessary for the flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 41, 1103–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bächtold, D., Baumüller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731–735.Google Scholar

Bahill, A. T., & Karnavas, W. J. (1993). The perceptual illusion of baseball’s rising fastball and breaking curveball. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(1), 3–14.Google Scholar

Baier, B., Zu Eulenburg, P., Best, C., Geber, C., Müller-Forell, W., Birklein, F., & Dieterich, M. (2013). Posterior insular cortex – a site of vestibular-somatosensory interaction? Brain and Behavior, 3(5), 519–524.Google Scholar

Bailenson, J. N., Shum, M. S., & Uttal, D. H. (1998). Road climbing: Principles governing asymmetric route choices on maps. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(3), 251–264.Google Scholar

Bailenson, J. N., Shum, M. S., & Uttal, D. H. (2000). The initial segment strategy: A heuristic for route selection. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 306–318.Google Scholar

Baird, J., Merrill, A., & Tannenbaum, J. (1979). Studies of the cognitive representation of spatial relations. II. A familiar environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 92–98.Google Scholar

Baird, J. C., Wagner, M., & Noma, E. (1982). Impossible cognitive spaces. Geographical Analysis, 14(3), 204–216.Google Scholar

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar

Balcetis, E. (2016). Approach and avoidance as organizing structures for motivated distance perception. Emotion Review, 8(2), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baldo, M. V. C., & Caticha, N. (2005). Computational neurobiology of the flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 45, 2620–2630.Google Scholar

Baldo, M. V. C., Kihara, A. H., Namba, J., & Klein, S. A. (2002). Evidence for an attentional component of the perceptual misalignment between moving and flashing stimuli. Perception, 31, 17–30.Google Scholar

Baldo, M. V. C., & Klein, S. A. (1995). Extrapolation or attention shift? Nature, 378, 565–566.Google Scholar

Baldo, M. V. C., & Klein, S. A. (2008) Shifting attention to the flash-lag effect. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(2), 198–199.Google Scholar

Baldo, M. V. C., & Klein, S. A. (2010). Paying attention to the flash-lag effect. In Nijhawan, R. & Khurana, B. (Eds.), Space and time in perception and action (pp. 396–407). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baldo, M. V. C., & Namba, J. (2002). The attentional modulation of the flash-lag effect. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 35, 969–972.Google Scholar

Baldo, M. V. C., Ranvaud, R. D., & Morya, E. (2002). Flag errors in soccer games: The flash-lag effect brought to real life. Perception, 31, 1205–1210.Google Scholar

Ball, K., & Sekuler, R. (1980). Human vision favors centrifugal motion. Perception, 9(3), 317–325.Google Scholar

Ball, K., & Sekuler, R. (1987). Direction-specific improvement in motion discrimination, Vision Research 27, 953–965.Google Scholar

Ball, W., & Tronick, E. (1971). Infant responses to impending collision – optical and real. Science, 171(3973), 818–820.Google Scholar

Banich, M. T., Heller, W., & Levy, J. (1989). Aesthetic preference and picture asymmetries. Cortex, 25, 187–195.Google Scholar

Bar, M. (2004). Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 617–629.Google Scholar

Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17, 645–648.Google Scholar

Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2191–2200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Barlow, H. B. (1980). Critical limiting factors in the design of the eye and visual cortex. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1981.0022.Google Scholar

Barnett-Cowan, M., Fleming, R. W., Singh, M., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2011). Perceived object stability depends on multisensory estimates of gravity. PLoS ONE 6(4), e19289.Google Scholar

Barra, J., Marquer, A., Joassin, R., Reymond, C., Metge, L., Chauvineau, V., & Pérennou, D. (2010). Humans use internal models to construct and update a sense of verticality. Brain, 133(Pt 12), 3552–3563.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–609.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.Google Scholar

Barth, H., Lesser, E., Taggart, J., & Slusser, E. (2015). Spatial estimation: A non-Bayesian alternative. Developmental Science, 18(5), 853–862.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P. (1987). Aspetti dell’emi-inattenzione spaziale nelle lesioni emisferiche: fattori che influenzano la bisezione di linee [Aspects of spatial hemi-inattention: factors influencing line bisection performance]. Unpublished MD thesis, Università Cattolica, Roma.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P. (1997). The novelty effect in recovered hemineglect. Cortex, 33(2), 323–332.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P. (2000). Inhibitory processes and compensation for spatial bias after right hemisphere damage. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 10, 511–526.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P. (2002). The relationship between visual perception and visual mental imagery: A reappraisal of the neuropsychological evidence. Cortex, 38(3), 357–378.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P. (2006). A parieto-frontal network for spatial awareness in the right hemisphere of the human brain. Archives of Neurology, 63, 1238–1241.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P. (2007). Visual neglect. Current Opinion in Neurology, 20(4), 381–386.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P. (2014). Attention disorders after right brain damage: Living in halved worlds. London: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartolomeo, P., Bachoud-Lévi, A.-C., Azouvi, P., & Chokron, S. (2005). Time to imagine space: A chronometric exploration of representational neglect. Neuropsychologia, 43(9), 1249–1257.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P., & Chokron, S. (1999). Left unilateral neglect or right hyperattention. Neurology, 53(9), 2023–2027.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P., Chokron, S., & Gainotti, G. (2001). Laterally directed arm movements and right unilateral neglect after left hemisphere damage. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1013–1021.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P., Chokron, S., & Siéroff, E. (1999). Facilitation instead of inhibition for repeated right-sided events in left neglect. NeuroReport, 10, 3353–3357.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P., D’Erme, P., & Gainotti, G. (1994). The relationship between visuospatial and representational neglect. Neurology, 44, 1710–1714.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P., Thiebaut de Schotten, M., & Chica, A. B. (2012). Brain networks of visuospatial attention and their disruption in visual neglect. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 110.Google Scholar

Bartolomeo, P., Urbanski, M., Chokron, S., Chainay, H., Moroni, C., Siéroff, E., et al. (2004). Neglected attention in apparent spatial compression. Neuropsychologia, 42(1), 49–61.Google Scholar

Bates, E., Wilson, S. M., Saygin, A. P., Dick, F., Sereno, M. I., Knight, R. T., & Dronkers, N. F. (2003). Voxel-based lesion–symptom mapping. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 448–450.Google Scholar

Battaglia, P. W., Hamrick, J. B., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2013). Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 110, 18327–18332.Google Scholar

Baumann, O., & Greenlee, M. W. (2007). Neural correlates of coherent audiovisual motion perception. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1433–1443.Google Scholar

Bauer, W. (2011). An argument for the extrinsic grounding of mass, Erkenntnis, 74(1), 81–99.Google Scholar

Bays, P. M., & Husain, M. (2008). Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science, 321(5890), 851–854.Google Scholar

Beaumont, J. G. (1985). Lateral organization and aesthetic preference. Neuropychologia, 23, 103–113.Google Scholar

Becker, B., & Mark, G. (1998, June). Social conventions in collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of Collaborative Virtual Environments (pp. 17–19).Google Scholar

Becker, S. I., Ansorge, U., & Turatto, M. (2009). Saccades reveal that allocentric coding of the moving object causes mislocalization in the flash-lag effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1313–1324.Google Scholar

Beecham, R., Reeve, R. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2009). Spatial representations are specific to different domains of knowledge. PlosOne, 4, e5543.Google Scholar

Beis, J. M., Keller, C., Morin, N., Bartolomeo, P., Bernati, T., Chokron, S., et al. (2004). Right spatial neglect after left hemisphere stroke: Qualitative and quantitative study. Neurology, 63, 1600–1605.Google Scholar

Ben-Artzi, E., & Marks, L. E. (1995). Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1151–1162.Google Scholar

Benedikt, M. L. (1979). To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B, 6, 47–65.Google Scholar

Benjafield, J. G. (2010). The golden section and American psychology 1892–1938. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 46, 52–71.Google Scholar

Benson, A. J. (1988). Spatial disorientation – general aspects. In Ernsting, J. & King, P. (Eds.), Aviation medicine (pp. 277–296). London: Butterworth.Google Scholar

Berlucchi, G. (2006). Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a mechanism and a better name. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 1065–1074.Google Scholar

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Bernstein, I. H., & Edelstein, B. A. (1971). Effects of some variations in auditory input upon visual choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 241–247.Google Scholar

Berry, M. J. II, Brivanlou, I. H., Jordan, T. A., & Meister, M. (1999). Anticipation of moving stimuli by the retina. Nature, 398, 334–338.Google Scholar

Berryhill, M. E., Fendrich, R., & Olson, I. R. (2009). Impaired distance perception and size constancy following bilateral occipitoparietal damage. Experimental Brain Research, 194(3), 381–393.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M. (1993). Memory for position and dynamic representations. Memory & Cognition, 21, 449–457.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., Bennett, K. M., & Bode, C. (2011). The anterior bias in visual art: The case of images of animals. Laterality, 16, 673–689.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., Bode, C., & Bruno, N. (2011). The effect of left-right reversal on film: Watching Kurosawa reversed. i-Perception, 2, 528–540.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., Jones, L. A., Spooner, A., & Hecht, H. (2005). Boundary extension: The role of magnification, object size, context, and binocular information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1288–1307.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., Latto, R., & Spooner, A. (2003). The Venus effect: People’s understanding of mirror reflections in paintings. Perception, 32, 593–599.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., Lawson, R., Jones, L., & Winters, M. (2010). The Venus effect in real life and in photographs. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1948–1964.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., Lawson, R., & Liu, D. (2008). Understanding 2D projections on mirrors and on windows. Spatial Vision, 21 (3–5), 273–289.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., & Parks, T. E. (2005). On what people know about images on mirrors. Cognition, 98, 85–104.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., Spooner, A., & Hecht, H. (2003). Naïve optics: Predicting and perceiving reflections in mirrors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 982–1002.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., & Wynne, L. A. (2009). The tendency to overestimate what is visible in a planar mirror amongst adults and children. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 516–528.Google Scholar

Bertamini, M., Yang, T. L., & Proffitt, D. R. (1998). Relative size perception at a distance is best at eye level. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 60, 673–682.Google Scholar

Berthoz, A. (2000). The brain’s sense of movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Berti, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(3), 415–420.Google Scholar

Beschin, N., Cubelli, R., Della, S., & Spinazzola, L. (1997). Left of what? The role of egocentric coordinates in neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 63(4), 483–489.Google Scholar

Bestmann, S., Ruff, C. C., Blakemore, C., Driver, J., & Thilo, K. V. (2007). Spatial attention changes excitability of human visual cortex to direct stimulation. Current Biology, 17, 134–139.Google Scholar

Bex, P. J., & Makous, W. (1997). Radial motion looks faster. Vision Research, 37(23), 3399–3405.Google Scholar

Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1076–1096.Google Scholar

Bian, Z., & Andersen, G. J. (2010). The advantage of a ground surface in the representation of visual scenes. Journal of Vision, 10(8), 1–19.Google Scholar

Bian, Z., Braunstein, M. L., & Andersen, G. J. (2005). The ground dominance effect in the perception of 3-D layout. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 67, 815–828.Google Scholar

Bian, Z., Braunstein, M. L., & Andersen, G. J. (2006). The ground dominance effect in the perception of relative distance in 3-D scenes is mainly due to characteristics of the ground surface. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 68, 1297–1309.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., Bertamini, M., & Savardi, U. (2015). Differences between predictions of how a reflection behaves based on the behaviour of an object. Acta Psychologica, 161, 54–63.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., Burro, R., Torquati, S., & Savardi, U. (2013). The middle of the road: Perceiving intermediates. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 121–135.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., Paradis, C, Burro, R., van de Weijer, J., Nyström, M., & Savardi, U. (2017). Identification of poles and intermediates by eye and by hand. Acta Psychologica, 180, 175–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bianchi, I., & Savardi, U. (2008a) The perception of contraries. Rome, IT: Aracne.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., & Savardi, U. (2008b). The relationship perceived between the real body and the mirror image. Perception, 5, 666–687.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., & Savardi, U. (2009). Contrariety in plane mirror reflections. In Savardi, U. (Ed.), The perception and cognition of contraries (pp. 113–128). Milan: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., & Savardi, U. (2012a). What fits in into a mirror: Naïve beliefs on the field of view of mirrors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1144–1158.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., & Savardi, U. (2012b). The cognitive dimensions of contrariety. In Bezieau, J.-Y. & Payette, G. (Eds.), The square of opposition: A general framework for cognition (pp. 443–470). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., & Savardi, U. (2014). Grounding naive physics and optics in perception. The Baltic International Yearbook for Cognition Logic and Communication, 6, 1–15.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., & Burro, R. (2011). Perceptual ratings of opposite spatial properties: Do they lie on the same dimension? Acta Psychologica, 138(3), 405–418.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., Burro, R., & Martelli, M.F. (2014). Doing the opposite to what another person is doing. Acta Psychologica, 151, 117–133.Google Scholar

Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., & Kubovy, M. (2011). Dimensions and their poles: A metric and topological theory of opposites. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(8), 1232–1265.Google Scholar

Biederman, I., Mezzanotte, R. J., & Rabinowitz, J. C. (1982). Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 143–177.Google Scholar

Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27–52.Google Scholar

Binetti, N., Hagura, N., Fadipe, C., Tomassini, A., Walsh, V., & Bestmann, S. (2015). Binding space and time through action. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 282(1805), 20150381.Google Scholar

Bingham, G. P., Schmidt, R. C., & Rosenblum, L. D. (1995). Dynamics and the orientation of kinematic forms in visual event recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1473–1493.Google Scholar

Bishop, R., & Atmanspacher, H. (2006) Contextual emergence in the description of properties. Foundations of Physics, 36, 1753–1777.Google Scholar

Bisiach, E., & Luzzatti, C. (1978). Unilateral neglect of representational space. Cortex, 14(1), 129–133.Google Scholar

Bisiach, E., Perani, D., Vallar, G., & Berti, A. (1986). Unilateral neglect: Personal and extra-personal. Neuropsychologia, 24, 759–767.Google Scholar

Bisiach, E., Pizzamiglio, L., Nico, D., & Antonucci, G. (1996). Beyond unilateral neglect. Brain, 119, 851–857.Google Scholar

Bisiach, E., Rusconi, M. L., Peretti, V. A., & Vallar, G. (1994). Challenging current accounts of unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1431–1434.Google Scholar

Blakemore, C., Carpenter, R. H. S., & Georgeson, M. A. (1970). Lateral inhibition between orientation detectors in the human visual system. Nature, 228, 37–39.Google Scholar

Blaker, N. M., & van Vugt, M. (2014). The status-size hypothesis: How cues of physical size and social status influence each other. In Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Anderson, C. (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 119–137). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar

Blättler, C., Ferrari, V., Didierjean, A., & Marmèche, E. (2011). Representational momentum in aviation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1569–1577.Google Scholar

Blättler, C., Ferrari, V., Didierjean, A., van Elslande, P., & Marmèche, E. (2010). Can expertise modulate representational momentum? Visual Cognition, 18, 1253–1273.Google Scholar

Bloesch, E. K., Davoli, C. C., Roth, N., Brockmole, J. R., & Abrams, R. A. (2012). Watch this! Observed tool use affects perceived distance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(2), 177–183.Google Scholar

Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L., & Garrett, M. (1996). Language and space. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Blumenfeld, W. (1913). Untersuchungen über die scheinbare Grösse im Sehraume. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 65, 241–404.Google Scholar

Bocianski, D., Müsseler, J., & Erlhagen, W. (2008). Relative mislocalization of successively presented stimuli. Vision Research, 48, 2204–2212.Google Scholar

Bocianski, D., Müsseler, J., & Erlhagen, W. (2010). Effects of attention on a relative mislocalization with successively presented stimuli. Vision Research, 50, 1793–1802.Google Scholar

Bock, G. R., & Good, J. (1994) Higher-order processing in the visual system. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar

Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. S. (1985). Effects of stereotypes in decision making and information-processing strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 267.Google Scholar

Boeschoten, M. A., Kemner, C., Kenemans, J. L., & Engeland, H. (2005). The relationship between local and global processing and the processing of high and low spatial frequencies studied by event-related potentials and source modeling. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 228–236.Google Scholar

Bonato, M. (2012). Neglect and extinction depend greatly on task demands: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 195.Google Scholar

Bonato, M., & Cutini, S. (2015). Increased attentional load moves the left to the right. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 38, 158–170.Google Scholar

Bonato, M., Saj, A., & Vuilleumier, P. (2016). Neural Plasticity, Volume 2016, Article ID 2716036.Google Scholar

Bonato, M., & Umiltà, C. (2014). Heterogeneous timescales are spatially represented. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 542.Google Scholar

Bonato, M., Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (2012). When time is space: Evidence for a mental time line. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews 36, 2257–2273.Google Scholar

Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology. New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, L. (2011). How languages construct time (pp. 333-342). In Dehaene, S. & Brannon, E. (Eds.), Space, time and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Bortolami, S. B., Pierobon, A., DiZio, P., & Lackner, J. R. (2006). Localization of the subjective vertical during roll, pitch, and recumbent yaw body tilt. Experimental Brain Research, 173, 364–373.Google Scholar

Bosco, G., Delle Monache, S., Gravano, S., Indovina, I., La Scaleia, B., et al. (2015). Filling gaps in visual motion for target capture. Frontiers Integrative Neuroscience, 9:13.Google Scholar

Bosco, G., Delle Monache, S., & Lacquaniti, F.(2012). Catching What We Can?t See: Manual Interception of Occluded Fly-Ball Trajectories. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e49381.Google Scholar

Boselie, F. (1984). The aesthetic attractivity of the golden section. Psychological Research, 45, 367–375.Google Scholar

Boselie, F. (1997). The golden section and shape of objects. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15, 131–141.Google Scholar

Bouleau, C. (2014). The painter’s secret geometry. Allegro Editions.Google Scholar

Bourgeois, A., Chica, A. B., Migliaccio, R., Bayle, D. J., Duret, C., Pradat-Diehl, P., et al. (2015). Inappropriate rightward saccades after right hemisphere damage: Oculomotor analysis and anatomical correlates. Neuropsychologia, 73, 1–11.Google Scholar

Bourgeois, A., Chica, A. B., Migliaccio, R., Thiebaut de Schotten, M., & Bartolomeo, P. (2012). Cortical control of inhibition of return: Evidence from patients with inferior parietal damage and visual neglect. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 800–809.Google Scholar

Bourlon, C., Duret, C., Pradat-Diehl, P., Azouvi, P., Loeper-Jeny, C., Merat-Blanchard, M., et al. (2011). Vocal response times to real and imagined stimuli in spatial neglect: A group study and single-case report. Cortex, 47(5), 536–546.Google Scholar

Bourlon, C., Oliviero, B., Wattiez, N., Pouget, P., & Bartolomeo, P. (2011). Visual mental imagery: What the head’s eye tells the mind’s eye. Brain Research, 1367, 287–297.Google Scholar

Bourlon, C., Pradat-Diehl, P., Duret, C., Azouvi, P., & Bartolomeo, P. (2008). Seeing and imagining the “same” objects in unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia, 46(10), 2602–2606.Google Scholar

Bourne, V. J. (2006). The divided visual field paradigm: Methodological considerations. Laterality, 11(4), 373–393.Google Scholar

Bower, T. G. R., Broughto, J. M., & Moore, M. K. (1971). Infant responses to approaching objects – indicator of response to distal variables. Perception & Psychophysics, 9(2B), 193–199.Google Scholar

Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 491–498.Google Scholar

Boyd, I. L. (1996). Temporal scales of foraging in a marine predator. Ecology, 77, 426–434.Google Scholar

Braaten, R. (1993, November). Synesthetic correspondence between visual location and auditory pitch in infants. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Bradburn, N. M., Rips, L. J., & Shevell, S. K. (1987). Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science, 236, 158–161.Google Scholar

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.Google Scholar

Branchini, E., Bianchi, I., Burro, R., Capitani, E., & Savardi, U. (2016). Can contraries prompt intuition in insight problem solving? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1962.Google Scholar

Branchini, E., Burro, R., Bianchi, I., & Savardi, U. (2015). Contraries as an effective strategy in geometrical problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(4), 397–430.Google Scholar

Brandt, T., Dieterich, M., & Danek, A. (1994). Vestibular cortex lesions affect the perception of verticality. Annals of Neurology, 35(4), 403–412.Google Scholar

Brehaut, J. C., & Tipper, S. P. (1996). Representational momentum and memory for luminance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 480–501.Google Scholar

Brendel, E., DeLucia, P. R., Hecht, H., Stacy, R. L., & Larsen, J. T. (2012). Threatening pictures induce shortened time-to-contact estimates. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 74(5), 979–987.Google Scholar

Brendel, E., Hecht, H., DeLucia, P. R., & Gamer, M. (2014). Emotional effects on time-to-contact judgments: Arousal, threat, and fear of spiders modulate the effect of pictorial content. Experimental Brain Research, 232(7), 2337–2347.Google Scholar

Brenner, E., van Beers, R. J., Rotman, G., & Smeets, J. B. J. (2006). The role of uncertainty in the systematic spatial mislocalization of moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 811–825.Google Scholar

Brenner, E., & Smeets, J. B. J. (2000). Motion extrapolation is not responsible for the flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 40, 1645–1648.Google Scholar

Brenner, E., Smeets, J. B. J. & Landy, M. S. (2001). How vertical disparities assist judgements of distance. Vision Research, 41, 3455–3465.Google Scholar

Brenner, E., van Beers, R. J., Rotman, G., & Smeets, J. B. J. (2006). The role of uncertainty in the systematic spatial mislocalization of moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 811–825.Google Scholar

Bresciani, J-P., Dammeier, F., & Ernst, M. O. (2006). Vision and touch are automatically integrated for the perception of sequences of events. Journal of Vision, 6, 554–564.Google Scholar

Bridgeman, B. (2006). Contributions of lateral inhibition to object substitution masking and attention. Vision Research, 46(24), 4075–4082.Google Scholar

Briggs, R. (1973) Urban cognitive distance. In Downs, R. & Stea, D. (Eds.), Image and environment (pp. 361–388). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar

Brockmann, D., Hufnagel, L., & Geisel, T. (2006). The scaling laws of human travel. Nature, 439(7075), 462–465.Google Scholar

Brodersen, K. H. (2009). Decoding mental activity from neuroimaging data – the science behind mind-reading. New Collection Oxford, 4, 50–61.Google Scholar

Brodie, E. E. (2010). Reflecting upon line bisection: Mirror reversal increases the magnitude of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1517–1520.Google Scholar

Bromberger, B., Sternschein, R. Widick, P, Smith, S. II, & Chatterjee, A. (2011). The right hemisphere in esthetic perception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 109; 1–8.Google Scholar

Brooks, A., van der Zwan, R., Billard, A., Petreska, B., Clarke, S., & Blanke, O. (2007). Auditory motion affects visual biological motion processing. Neuropsychologia, 45, 523–530.Google Scholar

Brouwer, A. M., Franz, V. H., & Thornton, I. M. (2004). Representational momentum in perception and grasping: Translating versus transforming objects. Journal of Vision, 4, 575–584.Google Scholar

Brouwer, A. M., Thornton, I. M., & Franz, V. H. (2005). Forward displacement in grasping and judging pliers. Visual Cognition, 12, 800–816.Google Scholar

Brown, C., Liebovitch, L., & Glendon, R. (2007). L’evy Flights in Dobe Ju/’hoansi Foraging Patterns. Human Ecology, 35(1), 129–138.Google Scholar

Brown, L. (1979). The story of maps. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Brown, N. R., Rips, L. J., & Shevell, S. K. (1985). The subjective dates of natural events in very-long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 139–177.Google Scholar

Brown, T. A., & Munger, M. P. (2010). Representational momentum, spatial layout, and viewpoint dependency. Visual Cognition, 18, 780–800.Google Scholar

Brunetti, R., Indraccolo, A., Del Gatto, C., Spence, C., & Santangelo, V. (2018). Are crossmodal correspondences absolute or relative? Context effects on speeded classification. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(2), 527–534.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1992). Another look at New Look 1. American Psychologist, 47(6), 780–783.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44.Google Scholar

Brunyé, T. T., Andonova, E., Meneghetti, C., Noordzij, M. L., Francesca Pazzaglia, P., Wienemann, R., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A (2012). Planning routes around the world: International evidence for southern route preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 297–304.Google Scholar

Brunyé, T. T., Collier, Z. A., Cantelon, J., Holmes, A., Wood, M. D., Linkov, I., & Taylor, H. A. (2015). Strategies for selecting routes through real-world environments: relative topography, initial route straightness, and cardinal direction. PLoS ONE, 10(5), 1–16.Google Scholar

Brunyé, T. T., Mahoney, C. R., Gardony, A. L., & Taylor, H. A. (2010). North is up (hill): Route planning heuristics in real-world environments. Memory & Cognition, 38, 700–712.Google Scholar

Bryant, D. J., & Subbiah, I. (1994). Subjective landmarks in perception and memory for spatial location. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 119–139.Google Scholar

Buchanan-Smith, H. M., & Heeley, D. W. (1993). Anisotropic axes in orientation perception are not retinotopically mapped. Perception, 22, 1389–1402.Google Scholar

Buckner, R. L., Krienen, F. M., Castellanos, A., Diaz, J. C., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2011). The organization of the human cerebellum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 106, 2322–2345.Google Scholar

Büechner, S. J., Hölscher, C., & Wiener, J. (2009). Search strategies and their success in a virtual maze. In Taatgen, N. A. & van Rijn, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1066–1071). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Bueti, D., & Walsh, V. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1831–1840.Google Scholar

Buetti, S., Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2014). The flanker effect does not reflect the processing of “task-irrelevant” stimuli: Evidence from inattentional blindness. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 21, 1231–1237.Google Scholar

Buhlman, I., Umiltà, C., & Wascher, E. (2007). Response coding and visuomotor transformation in the Simon task: The role of action goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1269–1282.Google Scholar

Burbeck, C. A. (1987). On the locus of spatial frequency discrimination. Journal of the Ophthalmology Society of America A, 4, 1807–1813.Google Scholar

Burkitt, J. A., Saucier, D. M., Thomas, N. A., & Ehresman, C. (2006). When advertising turns “cheeky”! Laterality, 11(3), 277–286.Google Scholar

Burlison, T. (2013). Columbia’s first victims. New York: Baen Publishing.Google Scholar

Burr, D. C., & Wijesundra, S. A. (1991) Orientation discrimination depends on spatial frequency. Vision Research, 31(7–8), 1449–1952.Google Scholar

Burris, C. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Distorted distance estimation induced by a self-relevant national boundary. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(3), 305–312.Google Scholar

Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex-differences – origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50(3), 164–168.Google Scholar

Butterworth, B. (2005). The development of arithmetical abilities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 3–18.Google Scholar

Byrd-Craven, J., & Geary, D. C. (2007). Biological and evolutionary contributions to developmental sex differences. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 15, 12–22.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. W. (1979) Memory for urban geography. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 147–154.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The rational imagination: How people create alternatives to reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cai, R. H., Jacobson, K., Baloh, R., Schlag-Rey, M., & Schlag, J. (2000). Vestibular signals can distort the perceived spatial relationship of retinal stimuli. Experimental Brain Research, 135, 275–278.Google Scholar

Cai, R. H., & Schlag, J. (2001). Asynchronous feature binding and the flash-lag illusion. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 42(4), S711Google Scholar

Calabria, M., Jacquin-Courtois, S., Miozzo, A., Rossetti, Y., Padovani, A., Cotelli, M., & Miniussi, C. (2011). Time perception in spatial neglect: A distorted representation? Neuropsychology, 25, 193–200.Google Scholar

Calvert, G. A., Spence, C., & Stein, B. E. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of multisensory processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, F. W., & Kulikowski, J. J. (1966). Orientational selectivity of the human visual system. Journal of Physiology, 187, 437–445.Google Scholar

Canal-Bruland, R., Pijpers, J. R., & Oudejans, R. R. (2010). The influence of anxiety on action-specific perception. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 23, 353–361.Google Scholar

Canal-Bruland, R., Zhu, F. F., van der Kamp, J., & Masters, R. S. W. (2011). Target-directed visual attention is a prerequisite for action-specific perception. Acta Psychologica, 136, 285–289.Google Scholar

Candel, I., Merckelbach, H., Houben, K., & Vandyck, I. (2004). How children remember neutral and emotional pictures: Boundary extension in children’s scene memories. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 249–257.Google Scholar

Canevet, G., Scharf, B., Schlauch, R. S., Teghtsoonian, M., & Teghtsoonian, R. (1999). Perception of changes in loudness. Nature, 398(6729), 673.Google Scholar

Cantlon, J. F., Platt, M. L., & Brannon, E. M. (2009). Beyond the number domain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 83–91.Google Scholar

Cantor, C. R. L., & Schor, C. M. (2007). Stimulus dependence of the flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 47, 2841–2854.Google Scholar

Canzoneri, E., Magosso, E., & Serino, A. (2012). Dynamic sounds capture the boundaries of peripersonal space representation in humans. PLoS ONE, 7(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044306Google Scholar

Cappe, C., Thelen, A., Romei, V., Thut, G., & Murray, M. M. (2012). Looming signals reveal synergistic principles of multisensory integration. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(4), 1171–1182.Google Scholar

Cappe, C., Thut, G., Romei, V., & Murraya, M. M. (2009). Selective integration of auditory-visual looming cues by humans. Neuropsychologia, 47(4), 1045–1052.Google Scholar

Carbon, C. C. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica, 134, 233–244.Google Scholar

Carbon, C. C. (2011). Cognitive mechanism for explaining dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. i-Perception, 2, 708–719.Google Scholar

Carbone, E., & Ansorge, U. (2008). Investigating the contribution of metacontrast to the Fröhlich effect for size. Acta Psychologica, 128(2), 361–367.Google Scholar

Carbone, E., & Pomplun, M. (2007). Motion misperception caused by feedback connections: A neural model simulating the Fröhlich effect. Psychological Research, 71(6), 709–715.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carlson, T. A., Hogendoorn, H., Fonteijn, H., & Verstraten, F. A. J. (2011). Spatial coding and invariance in object-selective cortex. Cortex, 47(1), 14–22.Google Scholar

Carnaghi, A., Piccoli, V., Brambilla, M., & Bianchi, M. (2014). Gender hierarchy in the space: the role of gender status in shaping the spatial agency bias. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(2), 105–114.Google Scholar

Carnevale, M. J., & Harris, L. R. (2016). Which direction is up for a high pitch? Multisensory Research, 29, 113–132.Google Scholar

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21, 1363–1368.Google Scholar

Carpenter, R. H. S., & Blakemore, C. (1973). Interaction between orientations in human vision. Experimental Brain Research, 18, 287–303.Google Scholar

Carrasco, M., Talgar, C. P., & Cameron, E. L. (2001). Characterizing visual performance fields: Effects of transient covert attention, spatial frequency, eccentricity, task and set size. Spatial Vision, 15, 61–75.Google Scholar

Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.Google Scholar

Carter, L. F., & Schooler, K. (1949). Value, need, and other factors in perception. Psychological Review, 56(4), 200–207.Google Scholar

Casasanto, D. (2014). Experiential origins of mental metaphors: Language, culture, and the body. In Landau, M., Robinson, M. D., & Meier, B. P. (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 249–268). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593.Google Scholar

Casasanto, D., & Bottini, R. (2014). Mirror-reading can reverse the flow of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 473–479.Google Scholar

Casasola, M. (2008). The development of infants’ spatial categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 21–25.Google Scholar

Casasola, M., Cohen, L. B., & Chiarello, E. (2003). Six-month-old infants’ categorization of containment spatial relations. Child Development, 74, 679–693.Google Scholar

Catteeuw, P., Gilis, B., Jaspers, A., Wagemans, J., & Helsen, W. (2010). Training of perceptual-cognitive skills in offside decision making. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 845–861.Google Scholar

Catteeuw, P., Gilis, B., Wagemans, J., & Helsen, W. (2010). Perceptual cognitive skills in offside decision making: Expertise and training effects. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 828–844.Google Scholar

Catteeuw, P., Helsen, W., Gilis, B., van Roie, E., & Wagemans, J. (2009). Visual scan patterns and decision-making skills of expert assistant referees in offside situations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 786–797.Google Scholar

Cavanagh, P., & Anstis, S. (2013). The flash grab effect. Vision Research, 91, 8–20.Google Scholar

Cave, K. R., Bush, W. S., & Taylor, T. G. G. (2010). Split attention as part of a flexible attentional system for complex scenes: Comment on Jans, Peters, and De Weerd (2010). Psychological Review, 117, 685–696.Google Scholar

Cellini, C., Scocchia, L., & Drewing, K. (2016). The buzz-lag effect. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 2849–2857.Google Scholar

Cesario, J., Plaks, J. E., Hagiwara, N., Navarrete, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). The ecology of automaticity how situational contingencies shape action semantics and social behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 1311–1319.Google Scholar

Cesqui, B., d’Avella, A., Portone, A., & Lacquaniti, F. (2012). Catching a ball at the right time and place: Individual factors matter. PLoS ONE, 7(2), e31770.Google Scholar

Chadwick, M. J., Mullally, S. L., & Maguire, E. A. (2013). The hippocampus extrapolates beyond the view in scenes: An fMRI study of boundary extension. Cortex, 49, 2067–2079.Google Scholar

Chambers, K. W., McBeath, M. K., Schiano, D. J., & Metz, E. (1999). Tops are more salient than bottoms. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(4), 625–635.Google Scholar

Chambon, M. (2009). Embodied perception with others’ bodies in mind: Stereotype priming influence on the perception of spatial environment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 283–287.Google Scholar

Champion, R. A., & Warren, P. A. (2008). Rapid size scaling in visual search. Visual Research, 48, 1820–1830.Google Scholar

Chang, D. H., Harris, L. R., & Troje, N. F. (2010). Frames of reference for biological motion and face perception. Journal of Vision, 10(6), 1–11.Google Scholar

Chang, D. H. F., & Troje, N. F. (2009). Acceleration carries the local inversion effect in biological motion perception. Journal of Vision, 9(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

Chang, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2015). Polarity correspondence effect between loudness and lateralized response set. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 683.Google Scholar

Chapanis, A., & Mankin, D. A. (1967). The vertical-horizontal illusion in a visually-rich environment. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 2(6), 249–255.Google Scholar

Chapman, B., & Bonhoeffer, T. (1998). Overrepresentation of horizontal and vertical orientations preferences in developing ferret area 17. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 2609–2614.Google Scholar

Chapman, P., Ropar, D., Mitchell, P., & Ackroyd, K. (2005). Understanding boundary extension: Normalization and extension errors in picture memory among adults and boys with and without Asperger’s syndrome. Visual Cognition, 12, 1265–1290.Google Scholar

Chappell, M., & Hinchy, J. (2014). Turning the corner with the flash–lag illusion. Vision Research, 96, 39–44.Google Scholar

Chappell, M., & Hine, T. J. (2004). Events before the flash do influence the flash-lag magnitude. Vision Research, 44, 235–239.Google Scholar

Chappell, M., Hine, T. J., Acworth, C., & Hardwick, D. R. (2006). Attention “capture” by the flash-lag flash. Vision Research, 46, 3205–3213.Google Scholar

Chappell, M., & Mullen, K. T. (2010). The magnocellular visual pathway and the flash-lag illusion. Journal of Vision, 10(11), 24.Google Scholar

Charles, J., Sahraie, A., & McGeorge, P. (2007). Hemispatial asymmetries in judgement of stimulus size. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 69(5), 687–698.Google Scholar

Charras, P., Brod, G., & Lupianez, J. (2012). Is 26 + 26 smaller than 24 + 28? Estimating the approximate magnitude of repeated versus different numbers. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(1), 163–173.Google Scholar

Charras, P., & Lupianez, J. (2009). The relevance of symmetry in line length perception. Perception, 38(10), 1428–1438.Google Scholar

Charras, P., & Lupiáñez, J. (2010). Length perception of horizontal and vertical bisected lines. Psychological Research, 74(2), 196–206.Google Scholar

Charras, P., Lupianez, J., & Bartolomeo, P. (2010). Assessing the weights of visual neglect: A new approach to dissociate defective symptoms from productive phenomena in length estimation. Neuropsychologia, 48(11), 3371–3375.Google Scholar

Charras, P., Lupianez, J., Migliaccio, R., Toba, M., Pradat-Diehl, P., Duret, C., & Bartolomeo, P. (2012). Dissecting the component deficits of perceptual imbalance in visual neglect: Evidence from horizontal-vertical length comparisons. Cortex, 48(5), 540–552.Google Scholar

Charras, P., Molina, E., & Lupianez, J. (2014). Additions are biased by operands: Evidence from repeated versus different operands. Psychological Research, 78(2), 248–265.Google Scholar

Chase, W. G. (1983). Spatial representations of taxi drivers. In Rogers, R. & Sloboda, J. A. (Eds.), Acquisition of symbolic skills (pp. 111–136). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Chatterjee, A. (2001). Language and space: Some interactions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 55–61.Google Scholar

Chatterjee, A. (2002). Portrait profiles and the notion of agency. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 33–41.Google Scholar

Chatterjee, A. (2008). The neural organization of spatial thought and language. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29, 226–238.Google Scholar

Chatterjee, A. (2012). Neuroaesthetics: Growing pains of a new disciple. In Shimamura, A. P. & Palmer, S. E. (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 299–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chatterjee, A. (2014). The aesthetic brain. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chauvel, G., Wulf, G., & Maquestiaux, F. (2015). Visual illusions can facilitate sport skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 717–721.Google Scholar

Cheal, M., Chastain, G., & Lyon, D. R. (1998). Inhibition of return in visual identification tasks. Visual Cognition, 5, 365–388.Google Scholar

Chen, L., & Vroomen, J. (2013). Intersensory binding across space and time: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 790–811.Google Scholar

Chen, Y. C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). Seeing and liking: Biased perception of ambiguous figures consistent with the “inward bias” in aesthetic preferences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1444–1451.Google Scholar

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125.Google Scholar

Cheng, K., Shettleworth, S. J., Huttenlocher, J., & Rieser, J. J. (2007). Bayesian integration of spatial information. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 625–637.Google Scholar

Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979.Google Scholar

Cheung, B., Hofer, K., Brooks, C. J., & Gibbs, P. (2000). Underwater disorientation as induced by two helicopter ditching devices. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 71(9), 879–888.Google Scholar

Chiao, J. Y. (2010). Neural basis of social status hierarchy across species. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20(6), 803–809.Google Scholar

Chiao, J. Y., Bordeaux, A. R., & Ambady, N. (2004). Mental representations of social status. Cognition, 93(2), B49–B57.Google Scholar

Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Oby, E. R., Li, Z., Parrish, T., & Bridge, D. J. (2009). Neural representations of social status hierarchy in human inferior parietal cortex. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 354–363.Google Scholar

Chica, A. B., Bartolomeo, P., & Valero-Cabré, A. (2011). Dorsal and ventral parietal contributions to spatial orienting in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(22), 8143–8149.Google Scholar

Chica, A. B., Taylor, T. L., Lupianez, Y., & Klein, R. M. (2010). Two mechanisms underlying inhibition of return. Experimental Brain Research, 201, 25–35.Google Scholar

Chieffi, S. (1996). Effects of stimulus asymmetry on line bisection. Neurology, 47(4), 1004–1008.Google Scholar

Chien, S. E., Ono, F., & Watanabe, K. (2013). A transient auditory signal shifts the perceived offset position of a moving visual object. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 70.Google Scholar

Chiou, R., & Rich, A. N. (2012). Cross-modality correspondence between pitch and spatial location modulates attentional orienting. Perception, 41, 339–353.Google Scholar

Chiou, R., & Rich, A. N. (2015). Volitional mechanisms mediate the cuing effect of pitch on attention orienting: The influences of perceptual difficulty and response pressure. Perception, 44, 169–182.Google Scholar

Cho, Y. S., Bae, G. Y., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Referential coding contributes to the horizontal SMARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 726–734.Google Scholar

Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10, 45–73.Google Scholar

Choi, H., & Scholl, B. J. (2006). Measuring causal perception: Connections to representational momentum? Acta Psychologica, 123, 91–111.Google Scholar

Chokron, S., Bartolomeo, P., Perenin, M. T., Helft, G., & Imbert, M. (1998). Scanning direction and line bisection: A study of normal subjects and unilateral neglect patients with opposite reading habits. Cognitive Brain Research, 7(2), 173–178.Google Scholar

Chokron, S., & de Agnostini, M. (2000). Reading habits influence aesthetic preference. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 45–49.Google Scholar

Chong, S. C., & Treisman, A. (2003). Representation of statistical properties. Vision Research, 43, 393–404.Google Scholar

Chowdhury, S. A., Christiansen, D. L., Morgan, M. L., & DeAngelis, G. C. (2008). Effect of vertical disparities on depth representation in macaque monkeys: MT physiology and behavior. Journal of Neurophysiology, 99, 876–887.Google Scholar

Chrastil, E. R., & Warren, W. H. (2013). Active and passive spatial learning in human navigation: Acquisition of survey knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1520–1537.Google Scholar

Chrastil, E. R., & Warren, W. H. (2014). From cognitive maps to cognitive graphs. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e112544.Google Scholar

Christenfeld, N. (1995). Choices from identical options. Psychological Science, 6(1), 50–55.Google Scholar

Christie, J., Hilchey, M. D., & Klein, R. M. (2013). Inhibition of return is at the midpoint of simultaneous cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(8), 1610–1618.Google Scholar

Christman, S. D., & Niebauer, C. L. (1997). The relation between left–right and upper–lower visual field differences. In Christman, S. (Ed.), Cerebral asymmetries in sensory and perceptual processing (pp. 263–298). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 78, 67–90.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. (1986). Neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cipora, K., Hohol, M., Nuerk, H.-C., Willmes, K., Brożek, B., Kucharzyk, B., & Nęcka, E. (2016). Professional mathematicians differ from controls in their spatial-numerical associations. Psychological Research, 80, 710–726.Google Scholar

Cipora, K., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2013). Is the SNARC effect related to the level of mathematics? No systematic relationship observed despite more power, more repetitions, and more direct assessment of arithmetic skill. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(10), 1974–1991.Google Scholar

Cipora, K., Patro, K., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2015). Are spatial-numerical associations a cornerstone for arithmetic learning? The lack of genuine correlations suggests no. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(4), 190–206.Google Scholar

Clark, A. (2001). Mindware: An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, A., & Toribio, J. (1994). Doing without representing? Synthese, 101, 401–431.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Moore, T. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–64). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Chase, W.G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472–517.Google Scholar

Clemens, I. A., De Vrijer, M., Selen, L. P., Van Gisbergen, J. A., & Medendorp, W. P. (2011). Multisensory processing in spatial orientation: an inverse probabilistic approach. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(14), 5365–5377.Google Scholar

Clément, G., & Reschke, M. F. (2008). Neuroscience in space. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Clery, J., Guipponi, O., Odouard, S., Wardak, C., & Ben Hamed, S. (2015). Impact prediction by looming visual stimuli enhances tactile detection. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(10), 4179–4189.Google Scholar

Coey, C., Varlet, M., & Richardson, M. (2012). Coordination dynamics in a socially situated nervous system. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 164.Google Scholar

Cohen, R., & Schuepfer, T. (1980). The representation of landmarks and routes. Child Development, 51(4), 1065–1071.Google Scholar