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 *

342 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25090427)

  • 1. Surprisingly rational: probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment.
    Costello F; Watts P
    Psychol Rev; 2014 Jul; 121(3):463-80. PubMed ID: 25090427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Probability theory plus noise: Replies to Crupi and Tentori (2016) and to Nilsson, Juslin, and Winman (2016).
    Costello F; Watts P
    Psychol Rev; 2016 Jan; 123(1):112-23. PubMed ID: 26709415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. People's conditional probability judgments follow probability theory (plus noise).
    Costello F; Watts P
    Cogn Psychol; 2016 Sep; 89():106-33. PubMed ID: 27570097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Random variation and systematic biases in probability estimation.
    Howe R; Costello F
    Cogn Psychol; 2020 Dec; 123():101306. PubMed ID: 33189032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Heuristics can produce surprisingly rational probability estimates: Comment on Costello and Watts (2014).
    Nilsson H; Juslin P; Winman A
    Psychol Rev; 2016 Jan; 123(1):103-11. PubMed ID: 26709414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Probability Theory Plus Noise: Descriptive Estimation and Inferential Judgment.
    Costello F; Watts P
    Top Cogn Sci; 2018 Jan; 10(1):192-208. PubMed ID: 29383882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Invariants in probabilistic reasoning.
    Costello F; Watts P
    Cogn Psychol; 2018 Feb; 100():1-16. PubMed ID: 29220640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Surprising rationality in probability judgment: Assessing two competing models.
    Costello F; Watts P; Fisher C
    Cognition; 2018 Jan; 170():280-297. PubMed ID: 29096329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Bayesian sampler: Generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments.
    Zhu JQ; Sanborn AN; Chater N
    Psychol Rev; 2020 Oct; 127(5):719-748. PubMed ID: 32191073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A quantum theory account of order effects and conjunction fallacies in political judgments.
    Yearsley JM; Trueblood JS
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Aug; 25(4):1517-1525. PubMed ID: 28879495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Enhancing Analytical Reasoning in the Intensive Care Unit.
    Barash M; Nanchal RS
    Crit Care Clin; 2022 Jan; 38(1):51-67. PubMed ID: 34794631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Noisy probability judgment, the conjunction fallacy, and rationality: Comment on Costello and Watts (2014).
    Crupi V; Tentori K
    Psychol Rev; 2016 Jan; 123(1):97-102. PubMed ID: 26709413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors.
    Busemeyer JR; Pothos EM; Franco R; Trueblood JS
    Psychol Rev; 2011 Apr; 118(2):193-218. PubMed ID: 21480739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessing the chances of success: naïve statistics versus kind experience.
    Hogarth RM; Mukherjee K; Soyer E
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Jan; 39(1):14-32. PubMed ID: 22686845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A theory of learning to infer.
    Dasgupta I; Schulz E; Tenenbaum JB; Gershman SJ
    Psychol Rev; 2020 Apr; 127(3):412-441. PubMed ID: 32223286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. How environmental regularities affect people's information search in probability judgments from experience.
    Hoffart JC; Rieskamp J; Dutilh G
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 Feb; 45(2):219-231. PubMed ID: 30024248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Is there something special with probabilities?--insight vs. computational ability in multiple risk combination.
    Juslin P; Lindskog M; Mayerhofer B
    Cognition; 2015 Mar; 136():282-303. PubMed ID: 25514208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comments on quantum probability theory.
    Sloman S
    Top Cogn Sci; 2014 Jan; 6(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 24482328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The similarity-updating model of probability judgment and belief revision.
    Albrecht R; Jenny MA; Nilsson H; Rieskamp J
    Psychol Rev; 2021 Nov; 128(6):1088-1111. PubMed ID: 34292023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Source reliability and the conjunction fallacy.
    Jarvstad A; Hahn U
    Cogn Sci; 2011; 35(4):682-711. PubMed ID: 21564268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.