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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25537840)

  • 1. The fate of redundant cues: Further analysis of the redundancy effect.
    Jones PM; Pearce JM
    Learn Behav; 2015 Mar; 43(1):72-82. PubMed ID: 25537840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A theoretical note in interpretation of the "redundancy effect" in associative learning.
    Vogel EH; Wagner AR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2017 Jan; 43(1):119-125. PubMed ID: 27786508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The redundancy effect in human causal learning: No evidence for changes in selective attention.
    Jones PM; Zaksaite T
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2018 Aug; 71(8):1748-1760. PubMed ID: 28695765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The fate of redundant cues during blocking and a simple discrimination.
    Pearce JM; Dopson JC; Haselgrove M; Esber GR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2012 Apr; 38(2):167-79. PubMed ID: 22486755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The fate of redundant cues in human predictive learning: The outcome ratio effect.
    Uengoer M; Lachnit H; Pearce JM
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Aug; 72(8):1945-1960. PubMed ID: 30654727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The role of common elements in the redundancy effect.
    Uengoer M; Lachnit H; Pearce JM
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2020 Jul; 46(3):286-296. PubMed ID: 32730082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Blocking and associability change.
    Jones PM; Haselgrove M
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2013 Jul; 39(3):249-58. PubMed ID: 23668185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preservation of within-compound associations after blocked preexposure to two compound flavors.
    Espinet A; Caramés JM; Cabo F
    Behav Processes; 2015 Nov; 120():94-100. PubMed ID: 26358495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Changes in attention to an irrelevant cue that accompanies a negative patterning [corrected] discrimination.
    Dopson JC; Esber GR; Pearce JM
    Learn Behav; 2011 Dec; 39(4):336-49. PubMed ID: 21499985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Contingent versus incidental context processing during conditioning: dissociation after excitotoxic hippocampal plus dentate gyrus lesions.
    Good M; de Hoz L; Morris RG
    Hippocampus; 1998; 8(2):147-59. PubMed ID: 9572721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A test for a difference in the associability of blocked and uninformative cues in human predictive learning.
    Uengoer M; Dwyer DM; Koenig S; Pearce JM
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Feb; 72(2):222-237. PubMed ID: 28649906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An examination of changes in behavioral control when stimuli with different associative histories are conditioned in compound.
    Fam J; Westbrook RF; Holmes NM
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2017 Jul; 43(3):205-218. PubMed ID: 28481560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The fate of redundant cues in human predictive learning.
    Uengoer M; Lotz A; Pearce JM
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2013 Oct; 39(4):323-33. PubMed ID: 24000906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. When more is less: extending training of the blocking association following compound training attenuates the blocking effect.
    Pineño O; Urushihara K; Stout S; Fuss J; Miller RR
    Learn Behav; 2006 Feb; 34(1):21-36. PubMed ID: 16786881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Trial spacing is a determinant of cue interaction.
    Stout SC; Chang R; Miller RR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2003 Jan; 29(1):23-38. PubMed ID: 12561131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Overshadowing and associability change: examining the contribution of differential stimulus exposure.
    Jones PM; Haselgrove M
    Learn Behav; 2013 Mar; 41(1):107-17. PubMed ID: 22956344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cue competition influences biconditional discrimination.
    Byrom NC; Murphy RA
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Feb; 72(2):182-192. PubMed ID: 28764580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Analysis of the perceptual learning effect in flavour aversion learning: evidence for stimulus differentiation.
    Mondragón E; Hall G
    Q J Exp Psychol B; 2002 Apr; 55(2):153-69. PubMed ID: 12075981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison and contrast as a mechanism of perceptual learning?
    Bennett CH; Mackintosh NJ
    Q J Exp Psychol B; 1999 Aug; 52(3):253-72. PubMed ID: 10467899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. AX+/BX- discrimination learning in the fear-potentiated startle paradigm in monkeys.
    Winslow JT; Noble PL; Davis M
    Learn Mem; 2008 Feb; 15(2):63-6. PubMed ID: 18230674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.