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 *

208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26860710)

  • 1. Congruency precues moderate item-specific proportion congruency effects.
    Hutchison KA; Bugg JM; Lim YB; Olsen MR
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 May; 78(4):1087-103. PubMed ID: 26860710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Converging evidence for control of color-word Stroop interference at the item level.
    Bugg JM; Hutchison KA
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Apr; 39(2):433-49. PubMed ID: 22845037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Can contingency learning alone account for item-specific control? Evidence from within- and between-language ISPC effects.
    Atalay NB; Misirlisoy M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2012 Nov; 38(6):1578-90. PubMed ID: 22563632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Stroop effect: why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency.
    Schmidt JR; Besner D
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 May; 34(3):514-23. PubMed ID: 18444752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Item-specific control of attention in the Stroop task: Contingency learning is not the whole story in the item-specific proportion-congruent effect.
    Spinelli G; Lupker SJ
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Apr; 48(3):426-435. PubMed ID: 31705394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Both task-irrelevant and task-relevant information trigger reactive conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion-congruent paradigm.
    Spinelli G; Morton JB; Lupker SJ
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2022 Dec; 29(6):2133-2145. PubMed ID: 35768659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects.
    Bugg JM; Jacoby LL; Chanani S
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Jun; 37(3):844-59. PubMed ID: 20718569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost.
    Bugg JM; McDaniel MA; Scullin MK; Braver TS
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Oct; 37(5):1595-606. PubMed ID: 21767049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Event-related potentials as brain correlates of item specific proportion congruent effects.
    Shedden JM; Milliken B; Watter S; Monteiro S
    Conscious Cogn; 2013 Dec; 22(4):1442-55. PubMed ID: 24177235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The item-specific proportion congruency effect can be contaminated by short-term repetition priming.
    Cochrane BA; Pratt J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2022 Jan; 84(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 34820767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Proactive control in the Stroop task: A conflict-frequency manipulation free of item-specific, contingency-learning, and color-word correlation confounds.
    Spinelli G; Lupker SJ
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2021 Oct; 47(10):1550-1562. PubMed ID: 32150437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The item-specific proportion congruency effect transfers to non-category members based on broad visual similarity.
    Cochrane BA; Pratt J
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2022 Oct; 29(5):1821-1830. PubMed ID: 35469093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Finding an interaction between Stroop congruency and flanker congruency requires a large congruency effect: A within-trial combination of conflict tasks.
    Rey-Mermet A
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Jul; 82(5):2271-2301. PubMed ID: 31974936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The next trial will be conflicting! Effects of explicit congruency pre-cues on cognitive control.
    Bugg JM; Smallwood A
    Psychol Res; 2016 Jan; 80(1):16-33. PubMed ID: 25522873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. ISPC effect is not observed when the word comes too late: a time course analysis.
    Atalay NB; Misirlisoy M
    Front Psychol; 2014; 5():1410. PubMed ID: 25538660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Exploring relations between task conflict and informational conflict in the Stroop task.
    Entel O; Tzelgov J; Bereby-Meyer Y; Shahar N
    Psychol Res; 2015 Nov; 79(6):913-27. PubMed ID: 25420632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dissociating proactive and reactive control in the Stroop task.
    Gonthier C; Braver TS; Bugg JM
    Mem Cognit; 2016 Jul; 44(5):778-88. PubMed ID: 26861210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Attention modulation by proportion congruency: the asymmetrical list shifting effect.
    Abrahamse EL; Duthoo W; Notebaert W; Risko EF
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Sep; 39(5):1552-62. PubMed ID: 23565794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The interactive effects of listwide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance.
    Hutchison KA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Jul; 37(4):851-60. PubMed ID: 21517220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. List-wide control is not entirely elusive: evidence from picture-word Stroop.
    Bugg JM; Chanani S
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2011 Oct; 18(5):930-6. PubMed ID: 21638107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.