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 *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16612580)

  • 1. Eyewitness lineups: is the appearance-change instruction a good idea?
    Charman SD; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2007 Feb; 31(1):3-22. PubMed ID: 16612580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence.
    Semmler C; Brewer N; Wells GL
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Apr; 89(2):334-46. PubMed ID: 15065979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Children's identification of faces from lineups: the effects of lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy.
    Beresford J; Blades M
    J Appl Psychol; 2006 Sep; 91(5):1102-13. PubMed ID: 16953771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Appearance-change instruction effects on eyewitness lineup identification accuracy are not moderated by amount of appearance change.
    Molinaro PF; Arndorfer A; Charman SD
    Law Hum Behav; 2013 Dec; 37(6):432-40. PubMed ID: 23855325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups.
    Wright DB
    Memory; 2007 Oct; 15(7):746-54. PubMed ID: 17852725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Does methodology matter in eyewitness identification research? The effect of live versus video exposure on eyewitness identification accuracy.
    Pozzulo JD; Crescini C; Panton T
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2008; 31(5):430-7. PubMed ID: 18790535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates.
    Brewer N; Wells GL
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2006 Mar; 12(1):11-30. PubMed ID: 16536656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions.
    Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Jun; 33(3):194-212. PubMed ID: 18600436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay.
    Wells GL; Olson EA; Charman SD
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2003 Mar; 9(1):42-52. PubMed ID: 12710837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: a field study.
    Horry R; Memon A; Wright DB; Milne R
    Law Hum Behav; 2012 Aug; 36(4):257-65. PubMed ID: 22849411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Postidentification feedback affects real eyewitnesses.
    Wright DB; Skagerberg EM
    Psychol Sci; 2007 Feb; 18(2):172-8. PubMed ID: 17425539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups.
    Flowe HD; Ebbesen EB
    Law Hum Behav; 2007 Feb; 31(1):33-52. PubMed ID: 17123159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy.
    Steblay NK; Dietrich HL; Ryan SL; Raczynski JL; James KA
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Aug; 35(4):262-74. PubMed ID: 20632113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. PC_Eyewitness and the sequential superiority effect: computer-based lineup administration.
    MacLin OH; Zimmerman LA; Malpass RS
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Jun; 29(3):303-21. PubMed ID: 15965630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Regularities in eyewitness identification.
    Clark SE; Howell RT; Davey SL
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Jun; 32(3):187-218. PubMed ID: 17410411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Creating fair lineups for suspects with distinctive features.
    Zarkadi T; Wade KA; Stewart N
    Psychol Sci; 2009 Dec; 20(12):1448-53. PubMed ID: 19883492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions.
    Clark SE; Marshall TE; Rosenthal R
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Mar; 15(1):63-75. PubMed ID: 19309217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: the unruly 10-12-second rule.
    Weber N; Brewer N; Wells GL; Semmler C; Keast A
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2004 Sep; 10(3):139-47. PubMed ID: 15462616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Postidentification feedback affects subsequent eyewitness identification performance.
    Palmer MA; Brewer N; Weber N
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2010 Dec; 16(4):387-98. PubMed ID: 21198255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: photospread administrators use one eyewitness's confidence to influence the identification of another eyewitness.
    Douglass AB; Smith C; Fraser-Thill R
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Oct; 29(5):543-62. PubMed ID: 16254742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.