129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18605503)
1. Social processing improves recall performance.
Reysen MB; Adair SA
Psychon Bull Rev; 2008 Feb; 15(1):197-201. PubMed ID: 18605503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes.
Zaromb FM; Roediger HL
Mem Cognit; 2010 Dec; 38(8):995-1008. PubMed ID: 21156864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Part-set cuing of false memories.
Reysen MB; Nairne JS
Psychon Bull Rev; 2002 Jun; 9(2):389-93. PubMed ID: 12120805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Modality effects in sentence recall.
Goolkasian P; Foos PW; Eaton M
J Gen Psychol; 2009 Apr; 136(2):205-23. PubMed ID: 19350835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Implicit associative responses influence encoding in memory.
Bryant DJ
Mem Cognit; 1990 Jul; 18(4):348-58. PubMed ID: 2381314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The influence of word frequency on recency effects in directed free recall.
Van Overschelde JP
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2002 Jul; 28(4):611-5. PubMed ID: 12109756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effects of phonological similarity and concurrent irrelevant articulation on short-term-memory recall of repeated and novel word lists.
Coltheart V
Mem Cognit; 1993 Jul; 21(4):539-45. PubMed ID: 8350745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dissociable lexical and phonological influences on serial recognition and serial recall.
Gathercole SE; Pickering SJ; Hall M; Peaker SM
Q J Exp Psychol A; 2001 Feb; 54(1):1-30. PubMed ID: 11216312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The curious case of orthographic distinctiveness: Disruption of categorical processing.
McDaniel MA; Cahill MJ; Bugg JM
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2016 Jan; 42(1):104-13. PubMed ID: 26237617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Semantic cuing and the scale insensitivity of recency and contiguity.
Polyn SM; Erlikhman G; Kahana MJ
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 May; 37(3):766-75. PubMed ID: 21299330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The role of inhibitory processes in part-list cuing.
Aslan A; Bäuml KH; Grundgeiger T
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2007 Mar; 33(2):335-41. PubMed ID: 17352615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Temporal associations and prior-list intrusions in free recall.
Zaromb FM; Howard MW; Dolan ED; Sirotin YB; Tully M; Wingfield A; Kahana MJ
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Jul; 32(4):792-804. PubMed ID: 16822147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Using overt rehearsals to explain word frequency effects in free recall.
Ward G; Woodward G; Stevens A; Stinson C
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Mar; 29(2):186-210. PubMed ID: 12696809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The temporal contiguity effect predicts episodic memory performance.
Sederberg PB; Miller JF; Howard MW; Kahana MJ
Mem Cognit; 2010 Sep; 38(6):689-99. PubMed ID: 20852233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Concreteness and item-to-list context associations in the free recall of items differing in context variability.
Marsh RL; Meeks JT; Hicks JL; Cook GI; Clark-Foos A
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Nov; 32(6):1424-30. PubMed ID: 17087594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Backward recall and the word length effect.
Surprenant AM; Brown MA; Jalbert A; Neath I; Bireta TJ; Tehan G
Am J Psychol; 2011; 124(1):75-86. PubMed ID: 21506452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Semantic similarity and immediate serial recall: is there an effect on all trials?
Saint-Aubin J; Ouellette D; Poirier M
Psychon Bull Rev; 2005 Feb; 12(1):171-7. PubMed ID: 15945210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effect of response modality on immediate serial recall in dementia of the Alzheimer type.
Macé AL; Ergis AM; Caza N
Neuropsychology; 2012 Sep; 26(5):613-23. PubMed ID: 22686353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Word frequency affects hypermnesia.
Macie KM; Larsen JD
Psychol Rep; 1996 Dec; 79(3 Pt 2):1379-82. PubMed ID: 9009796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. When does between-sequence phonological similarity promote irrelevant sound disruption?
Marsh JE; Vachon F; Jones DM
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Jan; 34(1):243-8. PubMed ID: 18194067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
