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 *

256 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18473655)

  • 21. Arousal, working memory, and conscious awareness in contingency learning.
    Cosand LD; Cavanagh TM; Brown AA; Courtney CG; Rissling AJ; Schell AM; Dawson ME
    Conscious Cogn; 2008 Dec; 17(4):1105-13. PubMed ID: 18573667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Contingency knowledge is necessary for learned motivated behaviour in humans: relevance for addictive behaviour.
    Hogarth L; Dickinson A; Hutton SB; Bamborough H; Duka T
    Addiction; 2006 Aug; 101(8):1153-66. PubMed ID: 16869845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser?
    Alloy LB; Abramson LY
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 1979 Dec; 108(4):441-85. PubMed ID: 528910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Friend or foe: the effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making.
    van 't Wout M; Sanfey AG
    Cognition; 2008 Sep; 108(3):796-803. PubMed ID: 18721917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Contingency judgements on the fly.
    Crump MJ; Hannah SD; Allan LG; Hord LK
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Jun; 60(6):753-61. PubMed ID: 17514591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The law of categorical judgment (Corrected) and the interpretation of changes in psychophysical performance.
    Rosner BS; Kochanski G
    Psychol Rev; 2009 Jan; 116(1):116-28. PubMed ID: 19159150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Pseudocontingencies: an integrative account of an intriguing cognitive illusion.
    Fiedler K; Freytag P; Meiser T
    Psychol Rev; 2009 Jan; 116(1):187-206. PubMed ID: 19159153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Contingency bias in probability judgement may arise from ambiguity regarding additional causes.
    Mitchell CJ; Griffiths O; More P; Lovibond PF
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013 Sep; 66(9):1675-86. PubMed ID: 23350876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: probability and the mental representation of events.
    Wakslak CJ; Trope Y; Liberman N; Alony R
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2006 Nov; 135(4):641-53. PubMed ID: 17087578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Recency and primacy in causal judgments: effects of probe question and context switch on latent inhibition and extinction.
    Glautier S
    Mem Cognit; 2008 Sep; 36(6):1087-93. PubMed ID: 18927027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Decision makers conceive of their choices as interventions.
    Hagmayer Y; Sloman SA
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2009 Feb; 138(1):22-38. PubMed ID: 19203168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A comparison of two diffusion process models in accounting for payoff and stimulus frequency manipulations.
    Leite FP
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2012 Aug; 74(6):1366-82. PubMed ID: 22669791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Causal judgment from contingency information: relation between subjective reports and individual tendencies in judgment.
    White PA
    Mem Cognit; 2000 Apr; 28(3):415-26. PubMed ID: 10881559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Perceive-decide-act, perceive-decide-act: how abstract is repetition-related decision learning?
    Denkinger B; Koutstaal W
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 May; 35(3):742-56. PubMed ID: 19379047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Contingency learning without awareness: evidence for implicit control.
    Schmidt JR; Crump MJ; Cheesman J; Besner D
    Conscious Cogn; 2007 Jun; 16(2):421-35. PubMed ID: 16899377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Decision-tree models of categorization response times, choice proportions, and typicality judgments.
    Lafond D; Lacouture Y; Cohen AL
    Psychol Rev; 2009 Oct; 116(4):833-55. PubMed ID: 19839685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Structure and strength in causal induction.
    Griffiths TL; Tenenbaum JB
    Cogn Psychol; 2005 Dec; 51(4):334-84. PubMed ID: 16168981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The sad truth about depressive realism.
    Allan LG; Siegel S; Hannah S
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):482-95. PubMed ID: 17366313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. An associative framework for probability judgment: an application to biases.
    Cobos PL; Almaraz J; García-Madruga JA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Jan; 29(1):80-96. PubMed ID: 12549585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Somatic markers and explicit knowledge are both involved in decision-making.
    Guillaume S; Jollant F; Jaussent I; Lawrence N; Malafosse A; Courtet P
    Neuropsychologia; 2009 Aug; 47(10):2120-4. PubMed ID: 19427005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.