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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14709114)

  • 1. Immediacy versus anticipated delay in the time-left experiment: a test of the cognitive hypothesis.
    Cerutti DT; Staddon JE
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2004 Jan; 30(1):45-57. PubMed ID: 14709114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Δ-∑ hypothesis: How contrast and reinforcement rate combine to generate suboptimal choice.
    González VV; Macías A; Machado A; Vasconcelos M
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2020 May; 113(3):591-608. PubMed ID: 32237091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Species differences between rats and pigeons in choices with probabilistic and delayed reinforcers.
    Mazur JE
    Behav Processes; 2007 Jun; 75(2):220-4. PubMed ID: 17343994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reinforcement omission in concurrent fixed-interval and random-interval schedules.
    Ishii T; Sakagami T
    Behav Processes; 2007 Mar; 74(3):334-41. PubMed ID: 17275211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement on choice.
    McDevitt MA; Williams BA
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2001 Mar; 75(2):165-82. PubMed ID: 11394485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Acquisition versus steady state in the time-left experiment.
    Machado A; Vasconcelos M
    Behav Processes; 2006 Feb; 71(2-3):172-87. PubMed ID: 16343806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ratio versus difference comparators in choice.
    Gibbon J; Fairhurst S
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1994 Nov; 62(3):409-34. PubMed ID: 7983462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Signaled reinforcement: Effects of signal reliability on choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives.
    Gomes-Ng S; Macababbad AC; Bai JYH; Baharrizki D; Elliffe D; Cowie S
    Behav Processes; 2020 May; 174():104088. PubMed ID: 32092454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Timescale invariance and Weber's law in choice.
    Jozefowiez J; Cerutti DT; Staddon JE
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2006 Jul; 32(3):229-38. PubMed ID: 16834491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. On the joint control of preference by time and reinforcer-ratio variation.
    Davison M; Cowie S; Elliffe D
    Behav Processes; 2013 May; 95():100-12. PubMed ID: 23410902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Distributed versus exclusive preference in discrete-trial choice.
    Mazur JE
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2010 Jul; 36(3):321-33. PubMed ID: 20658863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Training delays reduce the choose-short effect with keylight, but not with food, duration samples in pigeons.
    Grant DS
    Behav Processes; 2007 Feb; 74(2):209-16. PubMed ID: 17079092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Pigeons can learn a difficult discrimination if reinforcement is delayed following choice.
    House D; Peng D; Zentall TR
    Anim Cogn; 2020 May; 23(3):503-508. PubMed ID: 32086597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons.
    Gipson CD; Alessandri JJ; Miller HC; Zentall TR
    Learn Behav; 2009 Nov; 37(4):289-98. PubMed ID: 19815925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Procrastination by pigeons with fixed-interval response requirements.
    Mazur JE
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1998 Mar; 69(2):185-97. PubMed ID: 9540230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Testing the Δ-∑ hypothesis in the suboptimal choice task: Same delta with different probabilities of reinforcement.
    González VV; Macías A; Machado A; Vasconcelos M
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2020 Sep; 114(2):233-247. PubMed ID: 33460139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Conditioned reinforcement value and choice.
    Preston RA; Fantino E
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1991 Mar; 55(2):155-75. PubMed ID: 2037825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Modeling the dynamics of choice.
    Baum WM; Davison M
    Behav Processes; 2009 Jun; 81(2):189-94. PubMed ID: 19429211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Does conditioned reinforcement play a role in procrastination: A pigeon model.
    Zentall TR
    Behav Processes; 2020 Sep; 178():104139. PubMed ID: 32416196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.