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 *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23261421)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Proportion congruency and practice: A contingency learning account of asymmetric list shifting effects.
    Schmidt JR
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2016 Sep; 42(9):1496-505. PubMed ID: 27585071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Context-specific proportion congruent effects: Compound-cue contingency learning in disguise.
    Schmidt JR; Lemercier C
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 May; 72(5):1119-1130. PubMed ID: 29926760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Context-Specific Proportion Congruency Effects: An Episodic Learning Account and Computational Model.
    Schmidt JR
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1806. PubMed ID: 27899907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. The role of contingency and correlation in the Stroop task.
    Hasshim N; Parris BA
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2021 Oct; 74(10):1657-1668. PubMed ID: 34190618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: conflict adaptation or learning when to respond?
    Schmidt JR
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(11):e82320. PubMed ID: 24312413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Congruency sequence effects and previous response times: conflict adaptation or temporal learning?
    Schmidt JR; Weissman DH
    Psychol Res; 2016 Jul; 80(4):590-607. PubMed ID: 26093801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review.
    Schmidt JR
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2019 Jun; 26(3):753-771. PubMed ID: 30511233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus-response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs.
    Schmidt JR; De Houwer J; Rothermund K
    Cogn Psychol; 2016 Dec; 91():82-108. PubMed ID: 27821256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.