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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17328382)

  • 1. Discrepancy processes in prospective memory retrieval.
    Breneiser JE; McDaniel MA
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2006 Oct; 13(5):837-41. PubMed ID: 17328382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention.
    Marsh RL; Hicks JL; Cook GI; Hansen JS; Pallos AL
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Sep; 29(5):861-70. PubMed ID: 14516219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories.
    Scullin MK; Einstein GO; McDaniel MA
    Mem Cognit; 2009 Jun; 37(4):425-33. PubMed ID: 19460950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Robust recollection rejection in the memory conjunction paradigm.
    Lampinen JM; Odegard TN; Neuschatz JS
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2004 Mar; 30(2):332-42. PubMed ID: 14979808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Exploring the role of attention during memory retrieval: effects of semantic encoding and divided attention.
    Lozito JP; Mulligan NW
    Mem Cognit; 2006 Jul; 34(5):986-98. PubMed ID: 17128598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity.
    Logan GD
    Am J Psychol; 1992; 105(2):317-39. PubMed ID: 1621884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Retrieval dynamics in recognition and list discrimination: further evidence of separate processes of familiarity and recall.
    Hintzman DL; Caulton DA; Levitin DJ
    Mem Cognit; 1998 May; 26(3):449-62. PubMed ID: 9610117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Control of cost in prospective memory: evidence for spontaneous retrieval processes.
    Scullin MK; McDaniel MA; Einstein GO
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2010 Jan; 36(1):190-203. PubMed ID: 20053054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval.
    Einstein GO; McDaniel MA; Thomas R; Mayfield S; Shank H; Morrisette N; Breneiser J
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2005 Aug; 134(3):327-42. PubMed ID: 16131267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Experimental tests of prospective remembering: the influence of cue-event frequency on performance.
    Ellis J; Kvavilashvili L; Milne A
    Br J Psychol; 1999 Feb; 90 ( Pt 1)():9-23. PubMed ID: 10085543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Event-based prospective memory for poorly attended events.
    Cohen-Servi A; Meiran N; Kessler Y
    Exp Psychol; 2006; 53(4):301-7. PubMed ID: 17176662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Process-dissociation procedure: a testable model for considering assumptions about the stochastic relation between consciously controlled and automatic processes.
    Vaterrodt-Plünnecke B; Krüger T; Bredenkamp J
    Exp Psychol; 2002; 49(1):3-26. PubMed ID: 11975147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dissociating word stem completion and cued recall as a function of divided attention at retrieval.
    Clarke AJ; Butler LT
    Memory; 2008 Oct; 16(7):763-72. PubMed ID: 18720222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The influence of levels of processing on recall from working memory and delayed recall tasks.
    Loaiza VM; McCabe DP; Youngblood JL; Rose NS; Myerson J
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Sep; 37(5):1258-63. PubMed ID: 21707214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Metamemory for words and enacted instructions: predicting which items will be recalled.
    Cohen RL
    Mem Cognit; 1988 Sep; 16(5):452-60. PubMed ID: 3173094
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Does the effect of familiarity on proofreading change with encoding task and time?
    Pilotti M; Maxwell K; Chodorow M
    J Gen Psychol; 2006 Jul; 133(3):287-99. PubMed ID: 16937896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Influence of short-term memory codes on visual image processing: evidence from image transformation tasks.
    Brandimonte MA; Hitch GJ; Bishop DV
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1992 Jan; 18(1):157-65. PubMed ID: 1532018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Item- and task-level processes in the left inferior prefrontal cortex: positive and negative correlates of encoding.
    Reynolds JR; Donaldson DI; Wagner AD; Braver TS
    Neuroimage; 2004 Apr; 21(4):1472-83. PubMed ID: 15050572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dissociating the influence of familiarity and meaningfulness from word frequency in naming and lexical decision performance.
    Colombo L; Pasini M; Balota DA
    Mem Cognit; 2006 Sep; 34(6):1312-24. PubMed ID: 17225511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An application of signal detection theory with finite mixture distributions to source discrimination.
    DeCarlo LT
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Sep; 29(5):767-78. PubMed ID: 14516212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.