These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12908761)

  • 1. Quantitative analyses of matching-to-sample performance.
    Jones BM
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2003 May; 79(3):323-50. PubMed ID: 12908761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Matching-to-sample performance is better analyzed in terms of a four-term contingency than in terms of a three-term contingency.
    Jones BM; Elliffe DM
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2013 Jul; 100(1):5-26. PubMed ID: 23728927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. On the effects of signaling reinforcer probability and magnitude in delayed matching to sample.
    Brown GS; White KG
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2005 Mar; 83(2):119-28. PubMed ID: 15828590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli: II. Effects of changes in stimulus probability.
    Lattal KA
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1979 Jan; 31(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 429958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reinforcer probability, reinforcer magnitude, and the reinforcement context for remembering.
    Brown GS; White KG
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2009 Apr; 35(2):238-49. PubMed ID: 19364232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Choice is primarily based on the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than overall reinforcement rate.
    Smith AP; Zentall TR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2016 Apr; 42(2):212-20. PubMed ID: 26881902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. When is a choice not a choice? Pigeons fail to inhibit incorrect responses on a go/no-go midsession reversal task.
    McMillan N; Sturdy CB; Spetch ML
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2015 Jul; 41(3):255-65. PubMed ID: 25915749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the relationship between differential outcomes and differential sample responding in matching-to-sample.
    Urcuioli PJ; DeMarse T
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 1994 Jul; 20(3):249-63. PubMed ID: 8046356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Experience with dynamic reinforcement rates decreases resistance to extinction.
    Craig AR; Shahan TA
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2016 Mar; 105(2):291-306. PubMed ID: 26813330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Control of matching by differential outcome expectancies in the absence of differential sample-outcome associations: a serial compound view.
    Demarse TB; Urcuioli PJ
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2005 Oct; 31(4):449-66. PubMed ID: 16248731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A relational differential outcomes effect: pigeons can classify outcomes as "good" and "better".
    Friedrich AM; Zentall TR
    Anim Cogn; 2010 Mar; 13(2):359-65. PubMed ID: 19779744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of discrimination, rate of responding, and resistance to change.
    Nevin JA; Milo J; Odum AL; Shahan TA
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2003 May; 79(3):307-21. PubMed ID: 12908760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration.
    McLean AP; Blampied NM
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2001 Jan; 75(1):25-42. PubMed ID: 11256865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Empirical validation of a procedure to correct position and stimulus biases in matching-to-sample.
    Kangas BD; Branch MN
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2008 Jul; 90(1):103-12. PubMed ID: 18683615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Attentuation of the differential outcomes effect by extraneous reward.
    White KG; Millar JG
    Behav Processes; 2014 Oct; 108():7-10. PubMed ID: 25219548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Every reinforcer counts: reinforcer magnitude and local preference.
    Davison M; Baum WM
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2003 Jul; 80(1):95-129. PubMed ID: 13677611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Discriminative proprieties of Vary and Repeat contingencies.
    Souza Ada S; Abreu-Rodrigues J
    Behav Processes; 2010 Oct; 85(2):116-25. PubMed ID: 20619326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior.
    Schaal DW; Odum AL; Shahan TA
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2000 Mar; 73(2):125-39. PubMed ID: 10784005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Do pigeons (Columba livia) study for a test?
    Roberts WA; Feeney MC; McMillan N; MacPherson K; Musolino E; Petter M
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2009 Apr; 35(2):129-42. PubMed ID: 19364222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of prefeeding, extinction, and distraction during sample and comparison presentation on sensitivity to reinforcer frequency in matching to sample.
    Ward RD; Johnson RN; Odum AL
    Behav Processes; 2009 May; 81(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 19429198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.