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 *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23085143)

  • 1. Episodic retrieval and decaying inhibition in the competitor-rule suppression phenomenon.
    Hsieh S; Chang CC; Meiran N
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2012 Nov; 141(3):316-21. PubMed ID: 23085143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness?
    Horoufchin H; Philipp AM; Koch I
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Apr; 37(2):455-72. PubMed ID: 20853997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cue-type manipulation dissociates two types of task set inhibition: backward inhibition and competitor rule suppression.
    Regev S; Meiran N
    Psychol Res; 2016 Jul; 80(4):625-39. PubMed ID: 25822920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Temporal distinctiveness and repetition benefits in task switching: disentangling stimulus-related and response-related contributions.
    Horoufchin H; Philipp AM; Koch I
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Mar; 64(3):434-46. PubMed ID: 20680886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Can time-based decay explain temporal distinctiveness effects in task switching?
    Grange JA; Cross E
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2015; 68(1):19-45. PubMed ID: 25028178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Resolving task rule incongruence during task switching by competitor rule suppression.
    Meiran N; Hsieh S; Dimov E
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2010 Jul; 36(4):992-1002. PubMed ID: 20565214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cue response dissociates inhibitory processes: task identity information is related to backward inhibition but not to competitor rule suppression.
    Regev S; Meiran N
    Psychol Res; 2017 Jan; 81(1):168-181. PubMed ID: 26762518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Does Task Activation in Task Switching Influence Inhibition or Episodic Interference?
    Grange JA
    Exp Psychol; 2018 Nov; 65(6):393-404. PubMed ID: 30638164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. "Optimal suppression" as a solution to the paradoxical cost of multitasking: examination of suppression specificity in task switching.
    Katzir M; Ori B; Meiran N
    Psychol Res; 2018 Jan; 82(1):24-39. PubMed ID: 29075843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Exploring temporal dissipation of attention settings in auditory task switching.
    Koch I; Lawo V
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2014 Jan; 76(1):73-80. PubMed ID: 24163154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of episodic retrieval on inhibition in task switching.
    Grange JA; Kowalczyk AW; O'Loughlin R
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2017 Aug; 43(8):1568-1583. PubMed ID: 28383961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A neural mechanism of cognitive control for resolving conflict between abstract task rules.
    Sheu YS; Courtney SM
    Cortex; 2016 Dec; 85():13-24. PubMed ID: 27771559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Task-switch costs subsequent to cue-only trials.
    Swainson R; Martin D; Prosser L
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2017 Aug; 70(8):1453-1470. PubMed ID: 27174655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Electrophysiological correlates of competitor activation predict retrieval-induced forgetting.
    Hellerstedt R; Johansson M
    Cereb Cortex; 2014 Jun; 24(6):1619-29. PubMed ID: 23365212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences.
    Gade M; Koch I
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2005 Jun; 12(3):530-4. PubMed ID: 16235641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Explaining response-repetition effects in task switching: evidence from switching cue modality suggests episodic binding and response inhibition.
    Koch I; Frings C; Schuch S
    Psychol Res; 2018 May; 82(3):570-579. PubMed ID: 28286905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Testing probability matching and episodic retrieval accounts of response repetition effects in task switching.
    Altmann EM
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Jul; 37(4):935-51. PubMed ID: 21728467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Generic cognitive adaptations to task interference in task switching.
    Poljac E; Bekkering H
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2009 Nov; 132(3):279-85. PubMed ID: 19733342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Components of task switching: a closer look at task switching and cue switching.
    Schmitz F; Voss A
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2014 Sep; 151():184-96. PubMed ID: 25004102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/NoGo task.
    Smith JL; Smith EA; Provost AL; Heathcote A
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2010 Mar; 75(3):217-26. PubMed ID: 19951723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.