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 *

186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25344296)

  • 21. Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text.
    Little JL; McDaniel MA
    Mem Cognit; 2015 Jan; 43(1):85-98. PubMed ID: 25135813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Repeated retrieval practice and item difficulty: does criterion learning eliminate item difficulty effects?
    Vaughn KE; Rawson KA; Pyc MA
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2013 Dec; 20(6):1239-45. PubMed ID: 23589200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Category labels can influence the effects of selective retrieval on nonretrieved items.
    Wirth M; Bäuml KT
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Apr; 48(3):481-493. PubMed ID: 32157639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Reversing the testing effect by feedback: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.
    Pastötter B; Bäuml KH
    Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2016 Jun; 16(3):473-88. PubMed ID: 26857480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Intelligence as the efficiency of cue-driven retrieval from secondary memory.
    Liesefeld HR; Hoffmann E; Wentura D
    Memory; 2016; 24(3):285-94. PubMed ID: 25626154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Sleep can reduce the testing effect: it enhances recall of restudied items but can leave recall of retrieved items unaffected.
    Bäuml KH; Holterman C; Abel M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2014 Nov; 40(6):1568-81. PubMed ID: 24933697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Retrieval practice: a simple strategy for improving memory after traumatic brain injury.
    Sumowski JF; Wood HG; Chiaravalloti N; Wylie GR; Lengenfelder J; DeLuca J
    J Int Neuropsychol Soc; 2010 Nov; 16(6):1147-50. PubMed ID: 20946709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Retrieval practice and spacing effects in young and older adults: An examination of the benefits of desirable difficulty.
    Maddox GB; Balota DA
    Mem Cognit; 2015 Jul; 43(5):760-74. PubMed ID: 25616776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Getting more from visual working memory: Retro-cues enhance retrieval and protect from visual interference.
    Souza AS; Rerko L; Oberauer K
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2016 Jun; 42(6):890-910. PubMed ID: 26752731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format.
    Abel M; Roediger HL
    Mem Cognit; 2017 Jan; 45(1):81-92. PubMed ID: 27464491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Testing the myth of the encoding-retrieval match.
    Goh WD; Lu SH
    Mem Cognit; 2012 Jan; 40(1):28-39. PubMed ID: 21830162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Transfer-appropriate processing in the testing effect.
    Veltre MT; Cho KW; Neely JH
    Memory; 2015; 23(8):1229-37. PubMed ID: 25345914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Selective retrieval in categorized lists: Detrimental, neutral, and beneficial effects on nonretrieved items.
    Bäuml KT; Wallner L
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2020 Jul; 46(7):1372-1386. PubMed ID: 31697144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Contextual match and cue-independence of retrieval-induced forgetting: Testing the prediction of the model by Norman, Newman, and Detre (2007).
    Hanczakowski M; Mazzoni G
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 May; 39(3):953-8. PubMed ID: 23088549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Progressive retrieval practice leads to greater memory for image-word pairs than standard retrieval practice.
    Liu S; Zheng Z; Kent C; Briscoe J
    Memory; 2022 Aug; 30(7):796-805. PubMed ID: 35638593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The myth of the encoding-retrieval match.
    Nairne JS
    Memory; 2002; 10(5-6):389-95. PubMed ID: 12396651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Dynamic changes in large-scale functional network organization during autobiographical memory retrieval.
    Inman CS; James GA; Vytal K; Hamann S
    Neuropsychologia; 2018 Feb; 110():208-224. PubMed ID: 28951163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Between-list lag effects in recall depend on retention interval.
    Pyc MA; Balota DA; McDermott KB; Tully T; Roediger HL
    Mem Cognit; 2014 Aug; 42(6):965-77. PubMed ID: 24643791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. One month of human memory consolidation enhances retrieval-related hippocampal activity.
    Bosshardt S; Degonda N; Schmidt CF; Boesiger P; Nitsch RM; Hock C; Henke K
    Hippocampus; 2005; 15(8):1026-40. PubMed ID: 16015623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effects of testing on subsequent re-encoding and long-term forgetting of action-relevant materials: On the influence of recall type.
    Kubik V; Nilsson LG; Olofsson JK; Jönsson FU
    Scand J Psychol; 2015 Oct; 56(5):475-81. PubMed ID: 26243692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.