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 *

222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24842070)

  • 1. Proactive and reactive stopping when distracted: an attentional account.
    Verbruggen F; Stevens T; Chambers CD
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Aug; 40(4):1295-300. PubMed ID: 24842070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Strategy switches in proactive inhibitory control and their association with task-general and stopping-specific networks.
    Messel MS; Raud L; Hoff PK; Skaftnes CS; Huster RJ
    Neuropsychologia; 2019 Dec; 135():107220. PubMed ID: 31586553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Common and Unique Inhibitory Control Signatures of Action-Stopping and Attentional Capture Suggest That Actions Are Stopped in Two Stages.
    Tatz JR; Soh C; Wessel JR
    J Neurosci; 2021 Oct; 41(42):8826-8838. PubMed ID: 34493541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Neural Architecture of Selective Stopping Strategies: Distinct Brain Activity Patterns Are Associated with Attentional Capture But Not with Outright Stopping.
    Sebastian A; Rössler K; Wibral M; Mobascher A; Lieb K; Jung P; Tüscher O
    J Neurosci; 2017 Oct; 37(40):9785-9794. PubMed ID: 28887387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Electrophysiological evidence for the involvement of proactive and reactive control in a rewarded stop-signal task.
    Schevernels H; Bombeke K; Van der Borght L; Hopf JM; Krebs RM; Boehler CN
    Neuroimage; 2015 Nov; 121():115-25. PubMed ID: 26188262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Zooming in on the cause of the perceptual load effect in the go/no-go paradigm.
    Chen Z; Cave KR
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2016 Aug; 42(8):1072-87. PubMed ID: 26820251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A touching advantage: cross-modal stop-signals improve reactive response inhibition.
    Friehs MA; Schmalbrock P; Merz S; Dechant M; Hartwigsen G; Frings C
    Exp Brain Res; 2024 Mar; 242(3):599-618. PubMed ID: 38227008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of discrimination on the adoption of different strategies in selective stopping.
    Sánchez-Carmona AJ; Rincón-Pérez I; López-Martín S; Albert J; Hinojosa JA
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2021 Feb; 28(1):209-218. PubMed ID: 32815113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Attentional spatial cueing of the stop-signal affects the ability to suppress behavioural responses.
    Haque MT; Segreti M; Giuffrida V; Ferraina S; Brunamonti E; Pani P
    Exp Brain Res; 2024 Jun; 242(6):1429-1438. PubMed ID: 38652274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Selective cancellation of reactive or anticipated movements: Differences in speed of action reprogramming, but not stopping.
    Weber S; Salomoni SE; Hinder MR
    Cortex; 2024 Aug; 177():235-252. PubMed ID: 38875737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Selective stopping? Maybe not.
    Bissett PG; Logan GD
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2014 Feb; 143(1):455-72. PubMed ID: 23477668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Attention-related modulation of frontal midline theta oscillations in cingulate cortex during a spatial cueing Go/NoGo task.
    Hong X; Sun J; Wang J; Li C; Tong S
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2020 Feb; 148():1-12. PubMed ID: 31857191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Incentives and voluntary stopping: The intentional hand task.
    Weidacker K; Kvamme TL; Whiteford S; Valle Guzman N; Voon V
    Cognition; 2021 Jan; 206():104504. PubMed ID: 33161198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reconsidering electrophysiological markers of response inhibition in light of trigger failures in the stop-signal task.
    Skippen P; Fulham WR; Michie PT; Matzke D; Heathcote A; Karayanidis F
    Psychophysiology; 2020 Oct; 57(10):e13619. PubMed ID: 32725926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Differences in unity: The go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different mechanisms.
    Raud L; Westerhausen R; Dooley N; Huster RJ
    Neuroimage; 2020 Apr; 210():116582. PubMed ID: 31987997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Stopping Speed in Response to Auditory and Visual Stop Signals Depends on Go Signal Modality.
    Weber S; Salomoni SE; St George RJ; Hinder MR
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2024 Jun; 36(7):1395-1411. PubMed ID: 38683725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Proactive adjustments of response strategies in the stop-signal paradigm.
    Verbruggen F; Logan GD
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Jun; 35(3):835-54. PubMed ID: 19485695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A unified account of simple and response-selective inhibition.
    Gronau QF; Hinder MR; Salomoni SE; Matzke D; Heathcote A
    Cogn Psychol; 2024 Mar; 149():101628. PubMed ID: 38199181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cognitive mechanisms of inhibitory control deficits in autism spectrum disorder.
    Schmitt LM; White SP; Cook EH; Sweeney JA; Mosconi MW
    J Child Psychol Psychiatry; 2018 May; 59(5):586-595. PubMed ID: 29052841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Preparation to inhibit a response complements response inhibition during performance of a stop-signal task.
    Chikazoe J; Jimura K; Hirose S; Yamashita K; Miyashita Y; Konishi S
    J Neurosci; 2009 Dec; 29(50):15870-7. PubMed ID: 20016103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.