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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20565179)

  • 81. You can't always get what you want: the influence of unexpected task constraint on voluntary task switching.
    Weaver SM; Foxe JJ; Shpaner M; Wylie GR
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2014; 67(11):2247-59. PubMed ID: 24916773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 82. The shielding function of task sets and its relaxation during task switching.
    Dreisbach G; Wenke D
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Nov; 37(6):1540-6. PubMed ID: 21707220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 83. Target-directed visual attention is a prerequisite for action-specific perception.
    Cañal-Bruland R; Zhu FF; der Kamp Jv; Masters RS
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2011 Mar; 136(3):285-9. PubMed ID: 21272839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 84. Effect of arousal increase in predictable and random task switching: evidence for the involvement of the anterior attentional network in random but not in predictable task switching.
    Solano Galvis CA; Tornay Mejías F; Gómez Milán E
    Psicothema; 2010 Nov; 22(4):703-7. PubMed ID: 21044501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 85. Cue-switch costs in task-switching: cue priming or control processes?
    Grange JA; Houghton G
    Psychol Res; 2010 Sep; 74(5):481-90. PubMed ID: 20037766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 86. Bivalent task switching and memory load: Similar costs on reaction times, different costs on concurrent timing.
    Viau-Quesnel C; Fortin C
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2014 Sep; 68(3):194-203. PubMed ID: 25383477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 87. Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation.
    Stephan DN; Koch I
    Psychol Res; 2016 Nov; 80(6):935-943. PubMed ID: 26377338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 88. Target-to-distractor ratio effects on decision time in the orderly array shape cancellation task.
    Nakajima Y; Ikeda Y; Okuzumi H
    Psychol Rep; 2013 Oct; 113(2):353-61. PubMed ID: 24597434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 89. Human perceptual learning: the effect of pre-exposure schedule depends on task demands.
    Angulo R; Alonso G
    Behav Processes; 2012 Nov; 91(3):244-52. PubMed ID: 23022603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 90. The visuomotor mental rotation task: visuomotor transformation times are reduced for small and perceptually familiar angles.
    Neely KA; Heath M
    J Mot Behav; 2011; 43(5):393-402. PubMed ID: 21978212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 91. Shifting the set of stimulus selection when switching between tasks.
    Wendt M; Luna-Rodriguez A; Jacobsen T
    Psychol Res; 2018 Jan; 82(1):134-145. PubMed ID: 28752317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 92. Between-task competition for intentions and actions.
    Millington RS; Poljac E; Yeung N
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013 Aug; 66(8):1504-16. PubMed ID: 23170906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 93. Viewing time effects revisited: prolonged response latencies for sexually attractive targets under restricted task conditions.
    Imhoff R; Schmidt AF; Nordsiek U; Luzar C; Young AW; Banse R
    Arch Sex Behav; 2010 Dec; 39(6):1275-88. PubMed ID: 20198414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 94. A window of perception when diverting attention? Enhancing recognition for explicitly presented, unattended, and irrelevant stimuli by target alignment.
    Dewald AD; Sinnett S; Doumas LA
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Oct; 39(5):1304-12. PubMed ID: 23276115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 95. The interruptive effect of pain in a multitask environment: an experimental investigation.
    Van Ryckeghem DM; Crombez G; Eccleston C; Liefooghe B; Van Damme S
    J Pain; 2012 Feb; 13(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 22071367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 96. Beyond monitoring: after-effects of responding to prospective memory targets.
    Meier B; Rey-Mermet A
    Conscious Cogn; 2012 Dec; 21(4):1644-53. PubMed ID: 23064406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 97. Local processing enhancements associated with superior observational drawing are due to enhanced perceptual functioning, not weak central coherence.
    Chamberlain R; McManus IC; Riley H; Rankin Q; Brunswick N
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013; 66(7):1448-66. PubMed ID: 23234461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 98. Deep thinking increases task-set shielding and reduces shifting flexibility in dual-task performance.
    Fischer R; Hommel B
    Cognition; 2012 May; 123(2):303-7. PubMed ID: 22336726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 99. Modeling learned categorical perception in human vision.
    Casey MC; Sowden PT
    Neural Netw; 2012 Sep; 33():114-26. PubMed ID: 22622262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 100. The specificity of prospective memory costs.
    Cohen AL; Jaudas A; Hirschhorn E; Sobin Y; Gollwitzer PM
    Memory; 2012; 20(8):848-64. PubMed ID: 22900905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.