112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21823814)
1. Memory as discrimination: a challenge to the encoding-retrieval match principle.
Poirier M; Nairne JS; Morin C; Zimmermann FG; Koutmeridou K; Fowler J
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2012 Jan; 38(1):16-29. PubMed ID: 21823814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Aging and memory as discrimination: Influences of encoding specificity, cue overload, and prior knowledge.
Badham SP; Poirier M; Gandhi N; Hadjivassiliou A; Maylor EA
Psychol Aging; 2016 Nov; 31(7):758-770. PubMed ID: 27831714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Learned interval time facilitates associate memory retrieval.
van de Ven V; Kochs S; Smulders F; De Weerd P
Learn Mem; 2017 Apr; 24(4):158-161. PubMed ID: 28298554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Automatic Retrieval of Newly Instructed Cue-Task Associations Seen in Task-Conflict Effects in the First Trial after Cue-Task Instructions.
Meiran N; Pereg M
Exp Psychol; 2017 Jan; 64(1):37-48. PubMed ID: 28219260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The roles of encoding strategies and retrieval practice in test-expectancy effects.
Cho KW; Neely JH
Memory; 2017 May; 25(5):626-635. PubMed ID: 27348692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. How the size of the to-be-learned material influences the encoding and later retrieval of associative memories: A pupillometric assessment.
Pajkossy P; Racsmány M
PLoS One; 2019; 14(12):e0226684. PubMed ID: 31891588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Production does not improve memory for face-name associations.
Hourihan KL; Smith AR
Can J Exp Psychol; 2016 Jun; 70(2):147-53. PubMed ID: 27244356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Examining the engram encoding specificity hypothesis in mice.
Jung JH; Wang Y; Mocle AJ; Zhang T; Köhler S; Frankland PW; Josselyn SA
Neuron; 2023 Jun; 111(11):1830-1845.e5. PubMed ID: 36990091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The testing effect under divided attention.
Buchin ZL; Mulligan NW
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 Dec; 43(12):1934-1947. PubMed ID: 28504527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Retrieval activates related words more than presentation.
Hausman H; Rhodes MG
Memory; 2018 Oct; 26(9):1265-1280. PubMed ID: 29571266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Learning from your mistakes: does it matter if you're out in left foot, I mean field?
Cyr AA; Anderson ND
Memory; 2018 Oct; 26(9):1281-1290. PubMed ID: 29659332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of room size on geometry and features cue preference during reorientation: Modulating encoding strength or cue weighting.
Wang L; Mou W
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2020 Feb; 73(2):225-238. PubMed ID: 31390927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Techniques for scaffolding retrieval practice: The costs and benefits of adaptive versus diminishing cues.
Fiechter JL; Benjamin AS
Psychon Bull Rev; 2019 Oct; 26(5):1666-1674. PubMed ID: 31161529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Retrieval cues fail to influence contextualized evaluations.
Hutchings RJ; Calanchini J; Huang LM; Rees HR; Rivers AM; Roth J; Sherman JW
Cogn Emot; 2020 Feb; 34(1):86-104. PubMed ID: 31213178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reminders can enhance or impair episodic memory updating: a memory-for-change perspective.
Wahlheim CN; Smith WG; Delaney PF
Memory; 2019 Jul; 27(6):849-867. PubMed ID: 30810473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The neural correlates of competition during memory retrieval are modulated by attention to the cues.
Danker JF; Fincham JM; Anderson JR
Neuropsychologia; 2011 Jul; 49(9):2427-38. PubMed ID: 21549721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mechanisms of output interference in cued recall.
Wilson JH; Kellen D; Criss AH
Mem Cognit; 2020 Jan; 48(1):51-68. PubMed ID: 31297701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Unconscious memory suppression.
Salvador A; Berkovitch L; Vinckier F; Cohen L; Naccache L; Dehaene S; Gaillard R
Cognition; 2018 Nov; 180():191-199. PubMed ID: 30075345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Immediate judgments of learning are insensitive to implicit interference effects at retrieval.
Eakin DK; Hertzog C
Mem Cognit; 2012 Jan; 40(1):8-18. PubMed ID: 21915761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm.
Finley JR; Benjamin AS
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2012 May; 38(3):632-52. PubMed ID: 22103783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
