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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26372055)

  • 1. Learning to selectively attend from context-specific attentional histories: A demonstration and some constraints.
    Crump MJ
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2016 Mar; 70(1):59-77. PubMed ID: 26372055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reproducing the location-based context-specific proportion congruent effect for frequency unbiased items: A reply to Hutcheon and Spieler (2016).
    Crump MJ; Brosowsky NP; Milliken B
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2017 Sep; 70(9):1792-1807. PubMed ID: 27340758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of characteristics of target cues on task interference from prospective memory.
    Chen Y; Huang X; Jackson T; Yang H
    Neuroreport; 2009 Jan; 20(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 18978643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Trial-by-trial adjustments in control triggered by incidentally encoded semantic cues.
    Blais C; Harris MB; Sinanian MH; Bunge SA
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2015; 68(9):1920-30. PubMed ID: 25624095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cognitive costs of encoding novel natural activities: Can "learning by doing" be distracting and deceptive?
    von Stülpnagel R; Schult JC; Richter C; Steffens MC
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2016; 69(8):1545-63. PubMed ID: 26325343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The dual effect of context on memory of related and unrelated themes: discrimination at encoding and cue at retrieval.
    Levy-Gigi E; Vakil E
    Memory; 2012; 20(7):728-41. PubMed ID: 22809325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Judgements of relative direction: the effect of task instructions on spatial recall.
    Donaldson P; Tlauka M; Robertson C
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013 Jun; 66(6):1090-103. PubMed ID: 23057609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A configural dominant account of contextual cueing: Configural cues are stronger than colour cues.
    Kunar MA; John R; Sweetman H
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2014; 67(7):1366-82. PubMed ID: 24199842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Immediate and delayed recall of a small-scale spatial array.
    Tlauka M; Donaldson P; Bonnar D
    Memory; 2015; 23(3):420-6. PubMed ID: 24641312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of contextual integration on recall of pictures by older adults.
    Park DC; Smith AD; Morrell RW; Puglisi JT; Dudley WN
    J Gerontol; 1990 Mar; 45(2):P52-7. PubMed ID: 2313048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Stimulus homogeneity enhances implicit learning: evidence from contextual cueing.
    Feldmann-Wüstefeld T; Schubö A
    Vision Res; 2014 Apr; 97():108-16. PubMed ID: 24603347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Context-specific attentional sampling: Intentional control as a pre-requisite for contextual control.
    Brosowsky NP; Crump MJC
    Conscious Cogn; 2016 Aug; 44():146-160. PubMed ID: 27500654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Investigating cue competition in contextual cuing of visual search.
    Beesley T; Shanks DR
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2012 May; 38(3):709-25. PubMed ID: 21895393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Enhancement from targets and suppression from cues in fast task-irrelevant perceptual learning.
    Leclercq V; Seitz AR
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2012 Sep; 141(1):31-8. PubMed ID: 22842471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Retro-Cue Benefit for Verbal Material and Its Influence on the Probability of Intrusions Under Dual-Task Conditions.
    Krefeld-Schwalb A
    Exp Psychol; 2018 May; 65(3):128-138. PubMed ID: 29905113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Distinct roles of the intraparietal sulcus and temporoparietal junction in attentional capture from distractor features: An individual differences approach.
    Painter DR; Dux PE; Mattingley JB
    Neuropsychologia; 2015 Jul; 74():50-62. PubMed ID: 25724234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Attention and memory protection: Interactions between retrospective attention cueing and interference.
    Makovski T; Pertzov Y
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2015; 68(9):1735-43. PubMed ID: 25980784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Goal-driven selective attention in patients with right hemisphere lesions: how intact is the ipsilesional field?
    Snow JC; Mattingley JB
    Brain; 2006 Jan; 129(Pt 1):168-81. PubMed ID: 16317021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Automatic Retrieval of Newly Instructed Cue-Task Associations Seen in Task-Conflict Effects in the First Trial after Cue-Task Instructions.
    Meiran N; Pereg M
    Exp Psychol; 2017 Jan; 64(1):37-48. PubMed ID: 28219260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.