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 *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24707912)

  • 21. Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence.
    Semmler C; Brewer N; Wells GL
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Apr; 89(2):334-46. PubMed ID: 15065979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications.
    Clark SE; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Oct; 32(5):406-22. PubMed ID: 18095147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The single lineup paradigm: A new way to manipulate target presence in eyewitness identification experiments.
    Oriet C; Fitzgerald RJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Feb; 42(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 29461076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Mistaken eyewitness identification rates increase when either witnessing or testing conditions get worse.
    Smith AM; Wilford MM; Quigley-McBride A; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Aug; 43(4):358-368. PubMed ID: 31144829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Pre-identification confidence is related to eyewitness lineup identification accuracy across heterogeneous encoding conditions.
    Molinaro PF; Charman SD; Wylie K
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Dec; 45(6):524-541. PubMed ID: 34661424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Postidentification feedback affects real eyewitnesses.
    Wright DB; Skagerberg EM
    Psychol Sci; 2007 Feb; 18(2):172-8. PubMed ID: 17425539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions.
    Clark SE; Marshall TE; Rosenthal R
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Mar; 15(1):63-75. PubMed ID: 19309217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Police lineups of the future?
    Brewer N; Weber N; Guerin N
    Am Psychol; 2020 Jan; 75(1):76-91. PubMed ID: 30998024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The dud effect: adding highly dissimilar fillers increases confidence in lineup identifications.
    Charman SD; Wells GL; Joy SW
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Dec; 35(6):479-500. PubMed ID: 21222024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The selective cue integration framework: a theory of postidentification witness confidence assessment.
    Charman SD; Carlucci M; Vallano J; Gregory AH
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2010 Jun; 16(2):204-18. PubMed ID: 20565204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Investigating investigators: examining witnesses' influence on investigators.
    Dahl LC; Lindsay DS; Brimacombe CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Dec; 30(6):707-32. PubMed ID: 16741634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Potential causes of racial disparities in wrongful convictions based on mistaken identifications: Own-race bias and differences in evidence-based suspicion.
    Katzman J; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Feb; 47(1):23-35. PubMed ID: 36931847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: a 10- to 12-second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications.
    Dunning D; Perretta S
    J Appl Psychol; 2002 Oct; 87(5):951-62. PubMed ID: 12395819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Use of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to assess eyewitness accuracy and deception.
    Lefebvre CD; Marchand Y; Smith SM; Connolly JF
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2009 Sep; 73(3):218-25. PubMed ID: 19303425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: do prelineup questions and sequential testing help?
    Memon A; Gabbert F
    J Appl Psychol; 2003 Apr; 88(2):341-7. PubMed ID: 12731718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure.
    Wells GL; Steblay NK; Dysart JE
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Feb; 39(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 24933175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Criminal identification comparison: aural versus visual identifications resulting from a simulated crime.
    Hollien H; Bennett G; Gelfer MP
    J Forensic Sci; 1983 Jan; 28(1):208-21. PubMed ID: 6680738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups.
    Wright DB
    Memory; 2007 Oct; 15(7):746-54. PubMed ID: 17852725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences.
    Fitzgerald RJ; Price HL
    Psychol Bull; 2015 Nov; 141(6):1228-65. PubMed ID: 26011788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Determining eyewitness identification accuracy using event-related brain potentials (ERPs).
    Lefebvre CD; Marchand Y; Smith SM; Connolly JF
    Psychophysiology; 2007 Nov; 44(6):894-904. PubMed ID: 17666030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.