260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22484011)
21. Sequential effects in the Simon task: conflict adaptation or feature integration?
Chen S; Melara RD
Brain Res; 2009 Nov; 1297():89-100. PubMed ID: 19666010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. High working memory capacity does not always attenuate distraction: Bayesian evidence in support of the null hypothesis.
Sörqvist P; Marsh JE; Nöstl A
Psychon Bull Rev; 2013 Oct; 20(5):897-904. PubMed ID: 23479339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Individual differences in aging and cognitive control modulate the neural indexes of context updating and maintenance during task switching.
Adrover-Roig D; Barceló F
Cortex; 2010 Apr; 46(4):434-50. PubMed ID: 19889406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Individual differences in working memory capacity predict retrieval-induced forgetting.
Aslan A; Bäuml KH
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Jan; 37(1):264-9. PubMed ID: 21090906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Working memory capacity and visual attention: top-down and bottom-up guidance.
Shipstead Z; Harrison TL; Engle RW
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2012; 65(3):401-7. PubMed ID: 22404647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Remembered but unused: the accessory items in working memory that do not guide attention.
Peters JC; Goebel R; Roelfsema PR
J Cogn Neurosci; 2009 Jun; 21(6):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18702589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Working memory capacity and go/no-go task performance: selective effects of updating, maintenance, and inhibition.
Redick TS; Calvo A; Gay CE; Engle RW
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Mar; 37(2):308-24. PubMed ID: 21299326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Cognitive mechanisms associated with auditory sensory gating.
Jones LA; Hills PJ; Dick KM; Jones SP; Bright P
Brain Cogn; 2016 Feb; 102():33-45. PubMed ID: 26716891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. On the role of serotonin and effort in voluntary attention: evidence of genetic variation in N1 modulation.
Enge S; Fleischhauer M; Lesch KP; Strobel A
Behav Brain Res; 2011 Jan; 216(1):122-8. PubMed ID: 20655956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Carving executive control at its joints: Working memory capacity predicts stimulus-stimulus, but not stimulus-response, conflict.
Meier ME; Kane MJ
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2015 Nov; 41(6):1849-72. PubMed ID: 26120774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Dissociable mechanisms underlying individual differences in visual working memory capacity.
Gulbinaite R; Johnson A; de Jong R; Morey CC; van Rijn H
Neuroimage; 2014 Oct; 99():197-206. PubMed ID: 24878830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Low cognitive load strengthens distractor interference while high load attenuates when cognitive load and distractor possess similar visual characteristics.
Minamoto T; Shipstead Z; Osaka N; Engle RW
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2015 Jul; 77(5):1659-73. PubMed ID: 25813738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Functional correlates of distractor suppression during spatial working memory encoding.
Toepper M; Gebhardt H; Beblo T; Thomas C; Driessen M; Bischoff M; Blecker CR; Vaitl D; Sammer G
Neuroscience; 2010 Feb; 165(4):1244-53. PubMed ID: 19925856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. On the neural mechanisms underlying the protective function of retroactive cuing against perceptual interference: Evidence by event-related potentials of the EEG.
Schneider D; Barth A; Getzmann S; Wascher E
Biol Psychol; 2017 Mar; 124():47-56. PubMed ID: 28115199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Goal-neglect links Stroop interference with working memory capacity.
Morey CC; Elliott EM; Wiggers J; Eaves SD; Shelton JT; Mall JT
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2012 Oct; 141(2):250-60. PubMed ID: 22749714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Lapsed attention to elapsed time? Individual differences in working memory capacity and temporal reproduction.
Broadway JM; Engle RW
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2011 May; 137(1):115-26. PubMed ID: 21470583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The Swedish Hayling task, and its relation to working memory, verbal ability, and speech-recognition-in-noise.
Stenbäck V; Hällgren M; Lyxell B; Larsby B
Scand J Psychol; 2015 Jun; 56(3):264-72. PubMed ID: 25819210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Perceptual load interacts with stimulus processing across sensory modalities.
Klemen J; Büchel C; Rose M
Eur J Neurosci; 2009 Jun; 29(12):2426-34. PubMed ID: 19490081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Attention, working memory, and grammaticality judgment in typical young adults.
Smith PA
J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2011 Jun; 54(3):918-31. PubMed ID: 21106695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Interference in short-term auditory memory.
Mercer T; McKeown D
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Jul; 63(7):1256-65. PubMed ID: 20446187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
