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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17563226)

  • 1. Action-effect codes in and before the central bottleneck: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm.
    Paelecke M; Kunde W
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Jun; 33(3):627-44. PubMed ID: 17563226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The source of execution-related dual-task interference: motor bottleneck or response monitoring?
    Bratzke D; Rolke B; Ulrich R
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Oct; 35(5):1413-26. PubMed ID: 19803646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Dual-task performance with ideomotor-compatible tasks: is the central processing bottleneck intact, bypassed, or shifted in locus?
    Lien MC; McCann RS; Ruthruff E; Proctor RW
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2005 Feb; 31(1):122-44. PubMed ID: 15709868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies.
    Miller J; Ulrich R; Rolke B
    Cogn Psychol; 2009 May; 58(3):273-310. PubMed ID: 19281972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Viewer perspective affects central bottleneck requirements in spatial translation tasks.
    Franz EA; Sebastian A; Hust C; Norris T
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Apr; 34(2):398-412. PubMed ID: 18377178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Decomposing sources of response slowing in the PRP paradigm.
    Jentzsch I; Leuthold H; Ulrich R
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Jun; 33(3):610-26. PubMed ID: 17563225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions.
    Kunde W; Koch I; Hoffmann J
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2004 Jan; 57(1):87-106. PubMed ID: 14681005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm.
    Miller J; Alderton M
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2006 Feb; 32(1):149-65. PubMed ID: 16478333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: models and contamination effects.
    Ulrich R; Miller J
    Cogn Psychol; 2008 Sep; 57(2):75-121. PubMed ID: 18262510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Central interference in driving: is there any stopping the psychological refractory period?
    Levy J; Pashler H; Boer E
    Psychol Sci; 2006 Mar; 17(3):228-35. PubMed ID: 16507063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck.
    Schubert T; Fischer R; Stelzel C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Apr; 34(2):376-97. PubMed ID: 18377177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. On the locus of dual-task interference: Is there a bottleneck at the stimulus classification stage?
    Johnston JC; McCann RS
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2006 Apr; 59(4):694-719. PubMed ID: 16707358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How strategic is the central bottleneck: can it be overcome by trying harder?
    Ruthruff E; Johnston JC; Remington RW
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Oct; 35(5):1368-84. PubMed ID: 19803643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The costs of changing the representation of action: response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks.
    Schuch S; Koch I; Schuch S
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2004 Jun; 30(3):566-82. PubMed ID: 15161387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. General cognitive ability and the psychological refractory period: individual differences in the mind's bottleneck.
    Lee JJ; Chabris CF
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Jul; 24(7):1226-33. PubMed ID: 23744874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model.
    Tombu M; Jolicoeur P
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2005 Aug; 31(4):790-802. PubMed ID: 16131250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cognitive neuroscience: searching for the bottleneck in the brain.
    Spence C
    Curr Biol; 2008 Oct; 18(20):R965-8. PubMed ID: 18957255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Stress improves task processing efficiency in dual-tasks.
    Beste C; Yildiz A; Meissner TW; Wolf OT
    Behav Brain Res; 2013 Sep; 252():260-5. PubMed ID: 23769959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Parallel response selection after callosotomy.
    Hazeltine E; Weinstein A; Ivry RB
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2008 Mar; 20(3):526-40. PubMed ID: 18004953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. When underadditivity of factor effects in the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm implies a bottleneck: evidence from psycholinguistics.
    Besner D; Reynolds M; O'Malley S
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Nov; 62(11):2222-34. PubMed ID: 19370482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.