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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18630206)

  • 1. Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects.
    Proctor RW; Koch I; Vu KP; Yamaguchi M
    Mem Cognit; 2008 Jul; 36(5):998-1012. PubMed ID: 18630206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Task switching versus cue switching: using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance.
    Schneider DW; Logan GD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2007 Mar; 33(2):370-8. PubMed ID: 17352618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?
    Monsell S; Mizon GA
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2006 Jun; 32(3):493-516. PubMed ID: 16822121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Methodological and empirical issues when dissociating cue-related from task-related processes in the explicit task-cuing procedure.
    Forstmann BU; Brass M; Koch I
    Psychol Res; 2007 Jul; 71(4):393-400. PubMed ID: 16397813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Advance preparation in task switching: what work is being done?
    Altmann EM
    Psychol Sci; 2004 Sep; 15(9):616-22. PubMed ID: 15327633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Target cuing in visual search: the effects of conformality and display location on the allocation of visual attention.
    Yeh M; Wickens CD; Seagull FJ
    Hum Factors; 1999 Dec; 41(4):524-42. PubMed ID: 10774124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Task-switching performance with 1:1 and 2:1 cue-task mappings: not so different after all.
    Schneider DW; Logan GD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Mar; 37(2):405-15. PubMed ID: 21299334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Investigating a method for reducing residual switch costs in cued task switching.
    Schneider DW
    Mem Cognit; 2016 Jul; 44(5):762-77. PubMed ID: 26833200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. ERPs dissociate the effects of switching task sets and task cues.
    Nicholson R; Karayanidis F; Bumak E; Poboka D; Michie PT
    Brain Res; 2006 Jun; 1095(1):107-23. PubMed ID: 16714004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs.
    Jost K; Mayr U; Rösler F
    Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2008 Mar; 8(1):74-84. PubMed ID: 18405048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Head up versus head down: the costs of imprecision, unreliability, and visual clutter on cue effectiveness for display signaling.
    Yeh M; Merlo JL; Wickens CD; Brandenburg DL
    Hum Factors; 2003; 45(3):390-407. PubMed ID: 14702991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Updating sensory versus task representations during task-switching: insights from cognitive brain potentials in humans.
    Periáñez JA; Barceló F
    Neuropsychologia; 2009 Mar; 47(4):1160-72. PubMed ID: 19350711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing procedure: are there "true" task switch effects?
    Arrington CM; Logan GD; Schneider DW
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2007 May; 33(3):484-502. PubMed ID: 17470002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost.
    Arbuthnott KD; Woodward TS
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2002 Mar; 56(1):18-29. PubMed ID: 11901958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases "switch costs" in the explicit task-cuing procedure.
    Logan GD; Schneider DW
    Mem Cognit; 2006 Sep; 34(6):1250-9. PubMed ID: 17225506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Still clever after all these years: searching for the homunculus in explicitly cued task switching.
    Logan GD; Schneider DW; Bundesen C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Aug; 33(4):978-94. PubMed ID: 17683241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Why does the effect of short-SOA exogenous cuing on simple RT depend on the number of display locations?
    Mordkoff JT; Halterman R; Chen P
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2008 Aug; 15(4):819-24. PubMed ID: 18792510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Verbal representation in task order control: an examination with transition and task cues in random task switching.
    Saeki E; Saito S
    Mem Cognit; 2009 Oct; 37(7):1040-50. PubMed ID: 19744942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Task-switch costs subsequent to cue-only trials.
    Swainson R; Martin D; Prosser L
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2017 Aug; 70(8):1453-1470. PubMed ID: 27174655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Preparing a task is sufficient to generate a subsequent task-switch cost affecting task performance.
    Swainson R; Prosser LJ; Yamaguchi M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2024 Jan; 50(1):39-51. PubMed ID: 37498704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.