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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25754530)

  • 1. Do small dual-task costs reflect ideomotor compatibility or the absence of crosstalk?
    Halvorson KM; Hazeltine E
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2015 Oct; 22(5):1403-9. PubMed ID: 25754530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Investigating perfect timesharing: the relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dual-task performance.
    Halvorson KM; Ebner H; Hazeltine E
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Apr; 39(2):413-32. PubMed ID: 22866763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: an fMRI study.
    Stelzel C; Schumacher EH; Schubert T; D'Esposito M
    Psychol Res; 2006 Nov; 70(6):514-25. PubMed ID: 16175414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. On the minimization of task switch costs following long-term training.
    Berryhill ME; Hughes HC
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2009 Apr; 71(3):503-14. PubMed ID: 19304641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings.
    Göthe K; Oberauer K; Kliegl R
    Cognition; 2016 May; 150():92-108. PubMed ID: 26878090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Age differences in response selection for pure and mixed stimulus-response mappings and tasks.
    Vu KP; Proctor RW
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):49-60. PubMed ID: 18541219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Are spatial responses to visuospatial stimuli and spoken responses to auditory letters ideomotor-compatible tasks? Examination of set-size effects on dual-task interference.
    Shin YK; Proctor RW
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Nov; 129(3):352-64. PubMed ID: 18845280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Tactile Stimuli Increase Effects of Modality Compatibility in Task Switching.
    Stephan DN; Koch I
    Exp Psychol; 2015; 62(4):276-84. PubMed ID: 26421450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus-response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities.
    Boyer TW; Longo MR; Bertenthal BI
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2012 Mar; 139(3):440-8. PubMed ID: 22326448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Interference effects of stimulus-response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness.
    Stelzel C; Schubert T
    Psychol Res; 2011 Nov; 75(6):476-90. PubMed ID: 21811837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Emergent perceptual features in the benefit of consistent stimulus-response mappings on dual-task performance.
    Vu KP; Proctor RW
    Psychol Res; 2006 Nov; 70(6):468-83. PubMed ID: 16215745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dissociation of S-R compatibility and Simon effects with mixed tasks and mappings.
    Proctor RW; Yamaguchi M; Dutt V; Gonzalez C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Apr; 39(2):593-609. PubMed ID: 22963231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. What causes residual dual-task interference after practice?
    Ruthruff E; Hazeltine E; Remington RW
    Psychol Res; 2006 Nov; 70(6):494-503. PubMed ID: 16184395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Ideomotor compatibility enables automatic response selection.
    Maquestiaux F; Lyphout-Spitz M; Ruthruff E; Arexis M
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2020 Aug; 27(4):742-750. PubMed ID: 32323163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of stimulus features and instruction on response coding, selection, and inhibition: evidence from repetition effects under task switching.
    Druey MD; Hübner R
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2008 Oct; 61(10):1573-600. PubMed ID: 18777444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The impact of stimulus-specific practice and task instructions on response congruency effects between tasks.
    Wendt M; Kiesel A
    Psychol Res; 2008 Jul; 72(4):425-32. PubMed ID: 17546462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Parallel response selection after callosotomy.
    Hazeltine E; Weinstein A; Ivry RB
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2008 Mar; 20(3):526-40. PubMed ID: 18004953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation.
    Stephan DN; Koch I
    Psychol Res; 2016 Nov; 80(6):935-943. PubMed ID: 26377338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Confirming and disconfirming theories about ideomotor compatibility in dual-task performance: a reply to Greenwald (2005).
    Lien MC; McCann RS; Ruthruff E; Proctor RW
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2005 Feb; 31(1):226-9. PubMed ID: 15709876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality.
    Fintor E; Stephan DN; Koch I
    Psychol Res; 2018 Jan; 82(1):121-133. PubMed ID: 28578525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.