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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23761183)

  • 1. Reducing reliance on inaccurate information.
    Rapp DN; Hinze SR; Kohlhepp K; Ryskin RA
    Mem Cognit; 2014 Jan; 42(1):11-26. PubMed ID: 23761183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Can confidence help account for and redress the effects of reading inaccurate information?
    Salovich NA; Donovan AM; Hinze SR; Rapp DN
    Mem Cognit; 2021 Feb; 49(2):293-310. PubMed ID: 32964382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluative mindsets can protect against the influence of false information.
    Salovich NA; Kirsch AM; Rapp DN
    Cognition; 2022 Aug; 225():105121. PubMed ID: 35429735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: plausibility effects on memory for misinformation.
    Hinze SR; Slaten DG; Horton WS; Jenkins R; Rapp DN
    Mem Cognit; 2014 Feb; 42(2):305-24. PubMed ID: 24005790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Look it up: Online search reduces the problematic effects of exposures to inaccuracies.
    Donovan AM; Rapp DN
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Oct; 48(7):1128-1145. PubMed ID: 32441010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Misinformed and unaware? Metacognition and the influence of inaccurate information.
    Salovich NA; Rapp DN
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2021 Apr; 47(4):608-624. PubMed ID: 33151721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Is it smart to read on your phone? The impact of reading format and culture on the continued influence of misinformation.
    Xu Y; Wong R; He S; Veldre A; Andrews S
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Oct; 48(7):1112-1127. PubMed ID: 32430888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Perceptual coupling and decoupling of the default mode network during mind-wandering and reading.
    Zhang M; Bernhardt BC; Wang X; Varga D; Krieger-Redwood K; Royer J; Rodríguez-Cruces R; Vos de Wael R; Margulies DS; Smallwood J; Jefferies E
    Elife; 2022 Mar; 11():. PubMed ID: 35311643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Story stimuli for instantiating true and false beliefs about the world.
    Salovich NA; Imundo MN; Rapp DN
    Behav Res Methods; 2023 Jun; 55(4):1907-1923. PubMed ID: 35790682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Easy-to-read texts for students with intellectual disability: linguistic factors affecting comprehension.
    Fajardo I; Ávila V; Ferrer A; Tavares G; Gómez M; Hernández A
    J Appl Res Intellect Disabil; 2014 May; 27(3):212-25. PubMed ID: 23813583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. You don't have to believe everything you read: background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information.
    Richter T; Schroeder S; Wöhrmann B
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2009 Mar; 96(3):538-58. PubMed ID: 19254102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Readers' reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension.
    Sparks JR; Rapp DN
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Jan; 37(1):230-47. PubMed ID: 21244116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Credible narrators and misinformed readers.
    Houghton KJ; Poirier RC; Klin CM
    Mem Cognit; 2023 May; 51(4):825-844. PubMed ID: 36450939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reminders of Everyday Misinformation Statements Can Enhance Memory for and Beliefs in Corrections of Those Statements in the Short Term.
    Wahlheim CN; Alexander TR; Peske CD
    Psychol Sci; 2020 Oct; 31(10):1325-1339. PubMed ID: 32976064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts.
    Van Boekel M; Lassonde KA; O'Brien EJ; Kendeou P
    Mem Cognit; 2017 Jan; 45(1):168-181. PubMed ID: 27585919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Validation of strongly presupposed text concepts in reading comprehension: Cleft constructions.
    Singer M; Spear J
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2020 Mar; 74(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 31647253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Processing and memory of information presented in narrative or expository texts.
    Wolfe MB; Woodwyk JM
    Br J Educ Psychol; 2010 Sep; 80(Pt 3):341-62. PubMed ID: 20128958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation.
    Ecker UK; Lewandowsky S; Tang DT
    Mem Cognit; 2010 Dec; 38(8):1087-100. PubMed ID: 21156872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Does semantic knowledge influence event segmentation and recall of text?
    Newberry KM; Bailey HR
    Mem Cognit; 2019 Aug; 47(6):1173-1187. PubMed ID: 30915653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Neuroscientific information bias in metacomprehension: the effect of brain images on metacomprehension judgment of neuroscience research.
    Ikeda K; Kitagami S; Takahashi T; Hattori Y; Ito Y
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2013 Dec; 20(6):1357-63. PubMed ID: 23728726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.