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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17918420)

  • 1. Discrimination blocking: acquisition versus performance deficits in human contingency learning.
    Castro L; Wasserman EA
    Learn Behav; 2007 Aug; 35(3):149-62. PubMed ID: 17918420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The role of common elements in the redundancy effect.
    Uengoer M; Lachnit H; Pearce JM
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2020 Jul; 46(3):286-296. PubMed ID: 32730082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Learned predictiveness effects in humans: a function of learning, performance, or both?
    Le Pelley ME; Suret MB; Beesley T
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2009 Jul; 35(3):312-27. PubMed ID: 19594278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contrasting cue-density effects in causal and prediction judgments.
    Vadillo MA; Musca SC; Blanco F; Matute H
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2011 Feb; 18(1):110-5. PubMed ID: 21327350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. People want to see information that will help them make valid inferences in human causal learning.
    Vandorpe S; De Houwer J
    Mem Cognit; 2006 Jul; 34(5):1133-9. PubMed ID: 17128611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of cue competition in a simple and a complex design.
    Vandorpe S; De Houwer J
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2006 Jul; 122(3):234-46. PubMed ID: 16405898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Resistance to interference in human associative learning: evidence of configural processing.
    Shanks DR; Darby RJ; Charles D
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 1998 Apr; 24(2):136-50. PubMed ID: 9556907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cue-interaction effects in contingency judgments using the streamed-trial procedure.
    Hannah SD; Crump MJ; Allan LG; Siegel S
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2009 Jun; 63(2):103-12. PubMed ID: 19485601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The role of contingency and contiguity in young and older adults' causal learning.
    Mutter SA; DeCaro MS; Plumlee LF
    J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci; 2009 May; 64(3):315-23. PubMed ID: 19299255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Attention, awareness of contingencies, and control in spatial localization: a qualitative difference approach.
    Vaquero JM; Fiacconi C; Milliken B
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Dec; 36(6):1342-57. PubMed ID: 21038991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The fate of redundant cues: Further analysis of the redundancy effect.
    Jones PM; Pearce JM
    Learn Behav; 2015 Mar; 43(1):72-82. PubMed ID: 25537840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Super-learning of causal judgements.
    Aitken MR; Larkin MJ; Dickinson A
    Q J Exp Psychol B; 2000 Feb; 53(1):59-81. PubMed ID: 10718060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The role of drug expectancy in the control of human drug seeking.
    Hogarth L; Dickinson A; Wright A; Kouvaraki M; Duka T
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2007 Oct; 33(4):484-96. PubMed ID: 17924795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.
    Chapman GB; Robbins SJ
    Mem Cognit; 1990 Sep; 18(5):537-45. PubMed ID: 2233266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Testing a cue outside the training context increases attention to the contexts and impairs performance in human predictive learning.
    Aristizabal JA; Ramos-Álvarez MM; Callejas-Aguilera JE; Rosas JM
    Behav Processes; 2017 Dec; 145():31-36. PubMed ID: 28993245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Re-examination of the role of within-compound associations in the retrospective revaluation of causal judgements.
    Aitken MR; Larkin MJ; Dickinson A
    Q J Exp Psychol B; 2001 Feb; 54(1):27-51. PubMed ID: 11216299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Acquisition of automatic imitation is sensitive to sensorimotor contingency.
    Cook R; Press C; Dickinson A; Heyes C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Aug; 36(4):840-52. PubMed ID: 20695703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Blocking of goal-location learning based on shape.
    Alexander T; Wilson SP; Wilson PN
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 May; 35(3):694-708. PubMed ID: 19379044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The differences in learning abilities between spontaneously hypertensive (SHR) and Wistar normotensive rats are cue dependent.
    Lukaszewska I; Niewiadomska G
    Neurobiol Learn Mem; 1995 Jan; 63(1):43-53. PubMed ID: 7663879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Selective attention in human associative learning and recognition memory.
    Griffiths O; Mitchell CJ
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2008 Nov; 137(4):626-48. PubMed ID: 18999357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.