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: 18262510)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Queuing network modeling of the psychological refractory period (PRP).
    Wu C; Liu Y
    Psychol Rev; 2008 Oct; 115(4):913-54. PubMed ID: 18954209
    [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. [Analysis of interference effects in simultaneous processing of 2 problems].
    Schubert T
    Z Exp Psychol; 1996; 43(4):625-56. PubMed ID: 9206587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Modularity beyond perception: evidence from the PRP paradigm.
    Magen H; Cohen A
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2010 Apr; 36(2):395-414. PubMed ID: 20364926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon.
    Tombu M; Jolicoeur P
    Psychol Res; 2002 Nov; 66(4):274-86. PubMed ID: 12466925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The psychological refractory period of stopping.
    Horstmann G
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2003 Oct; 29(5):965-81. PubMed ID: 14585017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Introspective reports of reaction times in dual-tasks reflect experienced difficulty rather than timing of cognitive processes.
    Bryce D; Bratzke D
    Conscious Cogn; 2014 Jul; 27():254-67. PubMed ID: 24956469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Action-based and vision-based selection of input: two sources of control.
    Magen H; Cohen A
    Psychol Res; 2002 Nov; 66(4):247-59. PubMed ID: 12466923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.