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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20921107)

  • 21. How do older adults maintain corrections in knowledge across a lengthy delay?
    Sitzman DM; Tauber SK; Witherby AE
    Psychol Aging; 2020 Feb; 35(1):112-123. PubMed ID: 31647259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Delayed, but not immediate, feedback after multiple-choice questions increases performance on a subsequent short-answer, but not multiple-choice, exam: evidence for the dual-process theory of memory.
    Sinha N; Glass AL
    J Gen Psychol; 2015; 142(2):118-34. PubMed ID: 25832741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Prior knowledge is more predictive of error correction than subjective confidence.
    Sitzman DM; Rhodes MG; Tauber SK
    Mem Cognit; 2014 Jan; 42(1):84-96. PubMed ID: 23797971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention.
    Karpicke JD; Roediger HL
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2007 Jul; 33(4):704-19. PubMed ID: 17576148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. When and why a failed test potentiates the effectiveness of subsequent study.
    Hays MJ; Kornell N; Bjork RA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Jan; 39(1):290-6. PubMed ID: 22582968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Sleep reduces the testing effect-But not after corrective feedback and prolonged retention interval.
    Abel M; Haller V; Köck H; Pötschke S; Heib D; Schabus M; Bäuml KT
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 Feb; 45(2):272-287. PubMed ID: 29698042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Reversing the testing effect by feedback is a matter of performance criterion at practice.
    Racsmány M; Szőllősi Á; Marián M
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Oct; 48(7):1161-1170. PubMed ID: 32418183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Correcting a metacognitive error: feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses.
    Butler AC; Karpicke JD; Roediger HL
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Jul; 34(4):918-28. PubMed ID: 18605878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Delaying feedback by three seconds benefits retention of face-name pairs: the role of active anticipatory processing.
    Carpenter SK; Vul E
    Mem Cognit; 2011 Oct; 39(7):1211-21. PubMed ID: 21494908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Errors may not cue recall of corrective feedback: Evidence against the mediation hypothesis of the testing effect.
    Leggett JMI; Burt JS
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2021 Jan; 47(1):65-74. PubMed ID: 31944809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of feedback type on enhancing subsequent memory: Interaction with initial correctness and confidence level.
    Wang L; Yang J
    Psych J; 2021 Oct; 10(5):751-766. PubMed ID: 34498410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced.
    Mullet HG; Marsh EJ
    Mem Cognit; 2016 Apr; 44(3):403-12. PubMed ID: 26576564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Improved memory for error feedback.
    Van der Borght L; Schouppe N; Notebaert W
    Psychol Res; 2016 Nov; 80(6):1049-1058. PubMed ID: 26358052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The effects of immediate versus delayed feedback on complex concept learning.
    Corral D; Carpenter SK; Clingan-Siverly S
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2021 Apr; 74(4):786-799. PubMed ID: 33208050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Waiting for feedback helps if you want to know the answer: the role of curiosity in the delay-of-feedback benefit.
    Mullaney KM; Carpenter SK; Grotenhuis C; Burianek S
    Mem Cognit; 2014 Nov; 42(8):1273-84. PubMed ID: 24990492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Pretesting versus posttesting: Comparing the pedagogical benefits of errorful generation and retrieval practice.
    Pan SC; Sana F
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2021 Jun; 27(2):237-257. PubMed ID: 33793291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. How "none of the above" (NOTA) affects the accessibility of tested and related information in multiple-choice questions.
    Blendermann MF; Little JL; Gray KM
    Memory; 2020 Apr; 28(4):473-480. PubMed ID: 32106781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Neural correlates of error detection and correction in a semantic retrieval task.
    Butterfield B; Mangels JA
    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2003 Oct; 17(3):793-817. PubMed ID: 14561464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Testing and feedback effects on front-end control over later retrieval.
    Thomas RC; McDaniel MA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Mar; 39(2):437-50. PubMed ID: 22732026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Impact of web searching and social feedback on consumer decision making: a prospective online experiment.
    Lau AY; Coiera EW
    J Med Internet Res; 2008 Jan; 10(1):e2. PubMed ID: 18244893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.