162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26649453)
1. The benefit of expecting no conflict--Stronger influence of self-generated than cue-induced conflict expectations on Stroop performance.
Kemper M; Gaschler R; Schwager S; Schubert T
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2016 Jan; 163():135-41. PubMed ID: 26649453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cognitive control during a spatial Stroop task: Comparing conflict monitoring and prediction of response-outcome theories.
Pires L; Leitão J; Guerrini C; Simões MR
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Sep; 189():63-75. PubMed ID: 28683927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. It is not what you expect: dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task.
Jiménez L; Méndez A
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Feb; 39(1):271-84. PubMed ID: 22428671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Context-specific proportion congruent effects: Compound-cue contingency learning in disguise.
Schmidt JR; Lemercier C
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 May; 72(5):1119-1130. PubMed ID: 29926760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Contextual influences on the sequential congruency effect.
Hutcheon TG; Spieler DH
Psychon Bull Rev; 2014 Feb; 21(1):155-62. PubMed ID: 23821460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Multiple expectancies underlie the congruency sequence effect in confound-minimized tasks.
Erb CD; Aschenbrenner AJ
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2019 Jul; 198():102869. PubMed ID: 31228719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Expectation mismatch: differences between self-generated and cue-induced expectations.
Gaschler R; Schwager S; Umbach VJ; Frensch PA; Schubert T
Neurosci Biobehav Rev; 2014 Oct; 46 Pt 1():139-57. PubMed ID: 24971824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dissociating proportion congruent and conflict adaptation effects in a Simon-Stroop procedure.
Torres-Quesada M; Funes MJ; Lupiáñez J
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2013 Feb; 142(2):203-10. PubMed ID: 23337083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Repetition or alternation of context influences sequential congruency effect depending on the presence of contingency.
Atalay NB; Inan AB
Psychol Res; 2017 Mar; 81(2):490-507. PubMed ID: 26908247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An electrophysiological study of response conflict processing across the lifespan: assessing the roles of conflict monitoring, cue utilization, response anticipation, and response suppression.
Hämmerer D; Li SC; Müller V; Lindenberger U
Neuropsychologia; 2010 Sep; 48(11):3305-16. PubMed ID: 20638396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effector system-specific sequential modulations of congruency effects.
Janczyk M; Leuthold H
Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Jun; 25(3):1066-1072. PubMed ID: 28608004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict.
Lamers MJ; Roelofs A
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Jun; 64(6):1056-81. PubMed ID: 21113864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Attentional Reorientation and Inhibition Adjustment in a Verbal Stroop Task: A Lifespan Approach to Interference and Sequential Congruency Effect.
Ménétré E; Laganaro M
Front Psychol; 2019; 10():2028. PubMed ID: 31551876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An Investigation of the Reliability and Self-Regulatory Correlates of Conflict Adaptation.
Feldman JL; Freitas AL
Exp Psychol; 2016 Jul; 63(4):237-247. PubMed ID: 27750519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evidence for interaction between the stop signal and the Stroop task conflict.
Kalanthroff E; Goldfarb L; Henik A
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Apr; 39(2):579-92. PubMed ID: 22390293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An electrophysiological correlate of conflict processing in an auditory spatial Stroop task: the effect of individual differences in navigational style.
Buzzell GA; Roberts DM; Baldwin CL; McDonald CG
Int J Psychophysiol; 2013 Nov; 90(2):265-71. PubMed ID: 23994425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reduced Stroop interference under stress: Decreased cue utilisation, not increased executive control.
Booth RW
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Jun; 72(6):1522-1529. PubMed ID: 30304992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Motivational and cognitive determinants of control during conflict processing.
Soutschek A; Strobach T; Schubert T
Cogn Emot; 2014; 28(6):1076-89. PubMed ID: 24344784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The hot-hand fallacy in cognitive control: repetition expectancy modulates the congruency sequence effect.
Duthoo W; Wühr P; Notebaert W
Psychon Bull Rev; 2013 Aug; 20(4):798-805. PubMed ID: 23371807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Task conflict and proactive control: A computational theory of the Stroop task.
Kalanthroff E; Davelaar EJ; Henik A; Goldfarb L; Usher M
Psychol Rev; 2018 Jan; 125(1):59-82. PubMed ID: 29035077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
