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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17484439)

  • 1. Stimulus conflict predicts conflict adaptation in a numerical flanker task.
    Notebaert W; Verguts T
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2006 Dec; 13(6):1078-84. PubMed ID: 17484439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. It is not what you expect: dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task.
    Jiménez L; Méndez A
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Feb; 39(1):271-84. PubMed ID: 22428671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The conflict adaptation effect: it's not just priming.
    Ullsperger M; Bylsma LM; Botvinick MM
    Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2005 Dec; 5(4):467-72. PubMed ID: 16541815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Dissociating conflict adaptation from feature integration: a multiple regression approach.
    Notebaert W; Verguts T
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Oct; 33(5):1256-60. PubMed ID: 17924821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Disentangling posterror and postconflict reduction of interference.
    Van der Borght L; Braem S; Notebaert W
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2014 Dec; 21(6):1530-6. PubMed ID: 24740696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sequential dependencies in the Eriksen flanker task: a direct comparison of two competing accounts.
    Davelaar EJ; Stevens J
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2009 Feb; 16(1):121-6. PubMed ID: 19145021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict.
    Lamers MJ; Roelofs A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Jun; 64(6):1056-81. PubMed ID: 21113864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects.
    Notebaert W; Gevers W; Verbruggen F; Liefooghe B
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2006 Feb; 13(1):112-7. PubMed ID: 16724777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Stimulus ambiguity elicits response conflict.
    Szmalec A; Verbruggen F; Vandierendonck A; De Baene W; Verguts T; Notebaert W
    Neurosci Lett; 2008 Apr; 435(2):158-62. PubMed ID: 18329807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. To adapt or not to adapt: the question of domain-general cognitive control.
    Kan IP; Teubner-Rhodes S; Drummey AB; Nutile L; Krupa L; Novick JM
    Cognition; 2013 Dec; 129(3):637-51. PubMed ID: 24103774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Stimulus- and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task.
    Verbruggen F; Notebaert W; Liefooghe B; Vandierendonck A
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2006 Apr; 13(2):328-33. PubMed ID: 16893003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: a computational model.
    Blais C; Robidoux S; Risko EF; Besner D
    Psychol Rev; 2007 Oct; 114(4):1076-86. PubMed ID: 17907873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Adjustments to recent and frequent conflict reflect two distinguishable mechanisms.
    Purmann S; Badde S; Wendt M
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2009 Apr; 16(2):350-5. PubMed ID: 19293106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Context specificity of conflict frequency-dependent control.
    Vietze I; Wendt M
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Jul; 62(7):1391-400. PubMed ID: 19048452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Temporal and spectral profiles of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conflict processing.
    Wang K; Li Q; Zheng Y; Wang H; Liu X
    Neuroimage; 2014 Apr; 89():280-8. PubMed ID: 24315839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Conflict adaptation and sequential trial effects: support for the conflict monitoring theory.
    Clayson PE; Larson MJ
    Neuropsychologia; 2011 Jun; 49(7):1953-61. PubMed ID: 21435347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Generality and specificity in cognitive control: conflict adaptation within and across selective-attention tasks but not across selective-attention and Simon tasks.
    Freitas AL; Clark SL
    Psychol Res; 2015 Jan; 79(1):143-62. PubMed ID: 24487727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Flanker task with equiprobable congruent and incongruent conditions does not elicit the conflict N2.
    Kałamała P; Szewczyk J; Senderecka M; Wodniecka Z
    Psychophysiology; 2018 Feb; 55(2):. PubMed ID: 28845513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Conflict adaptation depends on task structure.
    Akçay C; Hazeltine E
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Aug; 34(4):958-73. PubMed ID: 18665738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Conflict adaptation within but not across NoGo decision criteria: Event-related-potential evidence of specificity in the contextual modulation of cognitive control.
    Feldman JL; Clark SL; Freitas AL
    Biol Psychol; 2015 Jul; 109():132-40. PubMed ID: 26003915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.