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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1834767)

  • 1. Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment.
    Chapman GB
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1991 Sep; 17(5):837-54. PubMed ID: 1834767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cue interaction effects in causal judgement: an interpretation in terms of the evidential evaluation model.
    White PA
    Q J Exp Psychol B; 2005 Apr; 58(2):99-140. PubMed ID: 16095042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The relative effect of cue interaction.
    Tangen JM; Allan LG
    Q J Exp Psychol B; 2003 Aug; 56(3):279-300. PubMed ID: 12881163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Overt attention and predictiveness in human contingency learning.
    Le Pelley ME; Beesley T; Griffiths O
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2011 Apr; 37(2):220-9. PubMed ID: 21319915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Predictions and causal estimations are not supported by the same associative structure.
    Vadillo MA; Matute H
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):433-47. PubMed ID: 17366310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Positive and negative mediation as a function of whether the absent cue was previously associated with the outcome.
    Castro L; Matute H
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Dec; 63(12):2359-75. PubMed ID: 20603776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Backward versus forward blocking: evidence for performance-based models of human contingency learning.
    Luque D; Vadillo MA
    Psychol Rep; 2011 Dec; 109(3):1001-16. PubMed ID: 22420128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Retrospective revaluation and inhibitory associations: does perceptual learning modulate our perception of the contingencies between events?
    Graham S
    Q J Exp Psychol B; 1999 May; 52(2):159-85. PubMed ID: 10371872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Transfer of absolute and relative predictiveness in human contingency learning.
    Kattner F
    Learn Behav; 2015 Mar; 43(1):32-43. PubMed ID: 25425296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cue interaction and judgments of causality: contributions of causal and associative processes.
    Tangen JM; Allan LG
    Mem Cognit; 2004 Jan; 32(1):107-24. PubMed ID: 15078048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [On the validity of applying associative learning model to the acquisition process of human contingency judgment].
    Shimazaki T
    Shinrigaku Kenkyu; 1999 Dec; 70(5):409-16. PubMed ID: 10756589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Relative salience versus relative validity: cue salience influences blocking in human associative learning.
    Le Pelley ME; Beesley T; Griffiths O
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2014 Jan; 40(1):116-32. PubMed ID: 24099508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Partial reinforcement and context switch effects in human predictive learning.
    Abad MJ; Ramos-Alvarez MM; Rosas JM
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Jan; 62(1):174-88. PubMed ID: 18609387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The blocking effect in associative learning involves learned biases in rapid attentional capture.
    Luque D; Vadillo MA; Gutiérrez-Cobo MJ; Le Pelley ME
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2018 Feb; 71(2):522-544. PubMed ID: 27874321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dissociations among judgments do not reflect cognitive priority: an associative explanation of memory for frequency information in contingency learning.
    Vadillo MA; Luque D
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2013 Mar; 67(1):60-71. PubMed ID: 22506878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Missing information in multiple-cue probability learning.
    White CM; Koehler DJ
    Mem Cognit; 2004 Sep; 32(6):1007-18. PubMed ID: 15673187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Weighting of contingency information in causal judgement: evidence of hypothesis dependence and use of a positive-test strategy.
    Mandel DR; Vartanian O
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Dec; 62(12):2388-408. PubMed ID: 19391044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgements than on causal judgements.
    De Houwer J; Vandorpe S; Beckers T
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):418-32. PubMed ID: 17366309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.