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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22563632)

  • 1. Can contingency learning alone account for item-specific control? Evidence from within- and between-language ISPC effects.
    Atalay NB; Misirlisoy M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2012 Nov; 38(6):1578-90. PubMed ID: 22563632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Converging evidence for control of color-word Stroop interference at the item level.
    Bugg JM; Hutchison KA
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Apr; 39(2):433-49. PubMed ID: 22845037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects.
    Bugg JM; Jacoby LL; Chanani S
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Jun; 37(3):844-59. PubMed ID: 20718569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Exploration of the mechanisms underlying the ISPC effect: evidence from behavioral and neuroimaging data.
    Grandjean J; D'Ostilio K; Fias W; Phillips C; Balteau E; Degueldre C; Luxen A; Maquet P; Salmon E; Collette F
    Neuropsychologia; 2013 May; 51(6):1040-9. PubMed ID: 23474077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Stroop effect: why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency.
    Schmidt JR; Besner D
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 May; 34(3):514-23. PubMed ID: 18444752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Item-specific control of attention in the Stroop task: Contingency learning is not the whole story in the item-specific proportion-congruent effect.
    Spinelli G; Lupker SJ
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Apr; 48(3):426-435. PubMed ID: 31705394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. ISPC effect is not observed when the word comes too late: a time course analysis.
    Atalay NB; Misirlisoy M
    Front Psychol; 2014; 5():1410. PubMed ID: 25538660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Event-related potentials as brain correlates of item specific proportion congruent effects.
    Shedden JM; Milliken B; Watter S; Monteiro S
    Conscious Cogn; 2013 Dec; 22(4):1442-55. PubMed ID: 24177235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The interactive effects of listwide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance.
    Hutchison KA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Jul; 37(4):851-60. PubMed ID: 21517220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Congruency precues moderate item-specific proportion congruency effects.
    Hutchison KA; Bugg JM; Lim YB; Olsen MR
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 May; 78(4):1087-103. PubMed ID: 26860710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model: dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm.
    Schmidt JR
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2013 Jan; 142(1):119-26. PubMed ID: 23261421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Contingency learning and unlearning in the blink of an eye: a resource dependent process.
    Schmidt JR; Houwer JD; Besner D
    Conscious Cogn; 2010 Mar; 19(1):235-50. PubMed ID: 20116294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Working memory load dissociates contingency learning and item-specific proportion-congruent effects.
    Spinelli G; Krishna K; Perry JR; Lupker SJ
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2020 Nov; 46(11):2007-2033. PubMed ID: 32658541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Contingency learning and episodic contributions to the item-specific proportion congruent effect.
    Gallego D; Méndez C; Jiménez L
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2023 Nov; ():17470218231208664. PubMed ID: 37818945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Disentangling Genuine Semantic Stroop Effects in Reading from Contingency Effects: On the Need for Two Neutral Baselines.
    Lorentz E; McKibben T; Ekstrand C; Gould L; Anton K; Borowsky R
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():386. PubMed ID: 27014177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Contingency learning is not affected by conflict experience: Evidence from a task conflict-free, item-specific Stroop paradigm.
    Levin Y; Tzelgov J
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2016 Feb; 164():39-45. PubMed ID: 26720099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Attention and facilitation: converging information versus inadvertent reading in Stroop task performance.
    Roelofs A
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2010 Mar; 36(2):411-22. PubMed ID: 20192539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The item-specific proportion congruency effect can be contaminated by short-term repetition priming.
    Cochrane BA; Pratt J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2022 Jan; 84(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 34820767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. ERP evidence for conflict in contingency learning.
    Whitehead PS; Brewer GA; Blais C
    Psychophysiology; 2017 Jul; 54(7):1031-1039. PubMed ID: 28349582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Learning to be in control involves response-specific mechanisms.
    Ruitenberg MFL; Braem S; Du Cheyne H; Notebaert W
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2019 Oct; 81(7):2526-2537. PubMed ID: 31073949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.