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 *

76 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15779531)

  • 21. The probability of causal conditionals.
    Over DE; Hadjichristidis C; Evans JS; Handley SJ; Sloman SA
    Cogn Psychol; 2007 Feb; 54(1):62-97. PubMed ID: 16839539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Judgement of two causal candidates from contingency information: effects of relative prevalence of the two causes.
    White P
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2004 Aug; 57(6):961-91. PubMed ID: 15370512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A quantitative causal model theory of conditional reasoning.
    Fernbach PM; Erb CD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Sep; 39(5):1327-43. PubMed ID: 23565785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The influence of improper sets of information on judgment: how irrelevant information can bias judged probability.
    Dougherty MR; Sprenger A
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2006 May; 135(2):262-81. PubMed ID: 16719653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [The effects of judge's roles on probability judgment].
    Minami M
    Shinrigaku Kenkyu; 1997 Jun; 68(2):79-87. PubMed ID: 9278959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Choosing optimal causal backgrounds for causal discovery.
    Barberia I; Baetu I; Sansa J; Baker AG
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Dec; 63(12):2413-31. PubMed ID: 20521215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Accounting for occurrences: a new view of the use of contingency information in causal judgment.
    White PA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Jan; 34(1):204-18. PubMed ID: 18194063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The impact of disablers on predictive inference.
    Cummins DD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2014 Nov; 40(6):1638-55. PubMed ID: 24911137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Reasoning heuristics across the psychosis continuum: the contribution of hypersalient evidence-hypothesis matches.
    Balzan R; Delfabbro P; Galletly C; Woodward T
    Cogn Neuropsychiatry; 2012; 17(5):431-50. PubMed ID: 22384982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. To predict or not to predict: influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic relations.
    Roehm D; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I; Rösler F; Schlesewsky M
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2007 Aug; 19(8):1259-74. PubMed ID: 17651001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Evidence and alternative medicine.
    Stalker DF
    Mt Sinai J Med; 1995 Mar; 62(2):132-43; discussion 159-62. PubMed ID: 7753080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Strength of evidence, judged probability, and choice under uncertainty.
    Fox CR
    Cogn Psychol; 1999 Feb; 38(1):167-89. PubMed ID: 10090802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Judgement of two causal candidates from contingency information: II. Effects of information about one cause on judgements of the other cause.
    White PA
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2005 Aug; 58(6):999-1021. PubMed ID: 16194945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The need to explain.
    Khemlani SS; Johnson-Laird PN
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Nov; 64(11):2276-88. PubMed ID: 21819280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. On the provenance of judgments of conditional probability.
    Zhao J; Shah A; Osherson D
    Cognition; 2009 Oct; 113(1):26-36. PubMed ID: 19665110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Schema bias in source monitoring varies with encoding conditions: support for a probability-matching account.
    Kuhlmann BG; Vaterrodt B; Bayen UJ
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2012 Sep; 38(5):1365-76. PubMed ID: 22545608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Changing perception of average person's risk does not suffice to change perception of comparative risk.
    Aucote HM; Gold RS
    Psychol Health Med; 2008 Aug; 13(4):461-70. PubMed ID: 18825584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Contingency bias in probability judgement may arise from ambiguity regarding additional causes.
    Mitchell CJ; Griffiths O; More P; Lovibond PF
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013 Sep; 66(9):1675-86. PubMed ID: 23350876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Surprisingly rational: probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment.
    Costello F; Watts P
    Psychol Rev; 2014 Jul; 121(3):463-80. PubMed ID: 25090427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Using statistical reasoning performance to reveal information parsing preferences in the mind.
    Brase GL
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2015; 68(3):459-72. PubMed ID: 25219640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.