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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25181327)

  • 1. Individual differences in decision making by foraging hummingbirds.
    Morgan KV; Hurly TA; Healy SD
    Behav Processes; 2014 Nov; 109 Pt B():195-200. PubMed ID: 25181327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds.
    Bateson M; Healy SD; Hurly TA
    Proc Biol Sci; 2003 Jun; 270(1521):1271-6. PubMed ID: 12816640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Context-dependent decisions among options varying in a single dimension.
    Morgan KV; Hurly TA; Bateson M; Asher L; Healy SD
    Behav Processes; 2012 Feb; 89(2):115-20. PubMed ID: 21945144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Context-dependent, risk-sensitive foraging preferences in wild rufous hummingbirds.
    Hurly TA; Oseen MD
    Anim Behav; 1999 Jul; 58(1):59-66. PubMed ID: 10413541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Colour cues facilitate learning flower refill schedules in wild hummingbirds.
    Samuels M; Hurly TA; Healy SD
    Behav Processes; 2014 Nov; 109 Pt B():157-63. PubMed ID: 25234604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Phantom alternatives influence food preferences in the eastern honeybee Apis cerana.
    Tan K; Dong S; Liu X; Chen W; Wang Y; Oldroyd BP; Latty T
    J Anim Ecol; 2015 Mar; 84(2):509-17. PubMed ID: 25251672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The impact of phantom decoys on choices in cats.
    Scarpi D
    Anim Cogn; 2011 Jan; 14(1):127-36. PubMed ID: 20838836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Recent advances in our understanding of risk-sensitive foraging preferences.
    Bateson M
    Proc Nutr Soc; 2002 Nov; 61(4):509-16. PubMed ID: 12691180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Spatial relational learning in rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus).
    Henderson J; Hurly TA; Healy SD
    Anim Cogn; 2006 Jul; 9(3):201-5. PubMed ID: 16767469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimating on the fly: The approximate number system in rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus).
    Corliss M; Brown T; Hurly TA; Healy SD; Tello-Ramos MC
    Learn Behav; 2021 Mar; 49(1):67-75. PubMed ID: 33319341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Corticosterone and nocturnal torpor in the rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus).
    Hiebert SM; Salvante KG; Ramenofsky M; Wingfield JC
    Gen Comp Endocrinol; 2000 Nov; 120(2):220-34. PubMed ID: 11078633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. SEXUAL SELECTION. Irrationality in mate choice revealed by túngara frogs.
    Lea AM; Ryan MJ
    Science; 2015 Aug; 349(6251):964-6. PubMed ID: 26315434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Oxidation rate and turnover of ingested sugar in hovering Anna's (Calypte anna) and rufous (Selasphorus rufus) hummingbirds.
    Welch KC; Suarez RK
    J Exp Biol; 2007 Jun; 210(Pt 12):2154-62. PubMed ID: 17562889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Preference reversal in multiattribute choice.
    Tsetsos K; Usher M; Chater N
    Psychol Rev; 2010 Oct; 117(4):1275-93. PubMed ID: 21038979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A generalized distance function for preferential choices.
    Berkowitsch NA; Scheibehenne B; Rieskamp J; Matthäus M
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2015 May; 68(2):310-25. PubMed ID: 25677976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Decision ecology: foraging and the ecology of animal decision making.
    Stephens DW
    Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2008 Dec; 8(4):475-84. PubMed ID: 19033242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Food preference and copying behaviour in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata.
    Guillette LM; Morgan KV; Hall ZJ; Bailey IE; Healy SD
    Behav Processes; 2014 Nov; 109 Pt B():145-50. PubMed ID: 24797456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Prefrontal mechanisms in preference and non-preference-based judgments.
    Foo JC; Haji T; Sakai K
    Neuroimage; 2014 Jul; 95():151-61. PubMed ID: 24662580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cue learning by rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus).
    Hurly TA; Healy SD
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2002 Apr; 28(2):209-23. PubMed ID: 11987877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The development of the asymmetrically dominated decoy effect in young children.
    Zhen S; Yu R
    Sci Rep; 2016 Mar; 6():22678. PubMed ID: 26935899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.