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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27177505)

  • 1. Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information.
    Little JL; Bjork EL
    Mem Cognit; 2016 Oct; 44(7):1085-101. PubMed ID: 27177505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Beyond the pretesting effect: What happens to the information that is not pretested?
    James KK; Storm BC
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2019 Dec; 25(4):576-587. PubMed ID: 31169394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs.
    Seabrooke T; Mitchell CJ; Wills AJ; Hollins TJ
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2021 Feb; 28(1):268-273. PubMed ID: 32959192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Optimizing multiple-choice tests as tools for learning.
    Little JL; Bjork EL
    Mem Cognit; 2015 Jan; 43(1):14-26. PubMed ID: 25123774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Pretesting versus posttesting: Comparing the pedagogical benefits of errorful generation and retrieval practice.
    Pan SC; Sana F
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2021 Jun; 27(2):237-257. PubMed ID: 33793291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Conditions of highly specific learning through cued recall.
    Pan SC; Lovelett J; Stoeckenius D; Rickard TC
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2019 Apr; 26(2):634-640. PubMed ID: 30937830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Age differences in eyewitness memory for a realistic event.
    West RL; Stone KR
    J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci; 2014 May; 69(3):338-47. PubMed ID: 23531920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. How "none of the above" (NOTA) affects the accessibility of tested and related information in multiple-choice questions.
    Blendermann MF; Little JL; Gray KM
    Memory; 2020 Apr; 28(4):473-480. PubMed ID: 32106781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Multiple-choice tests exonerated, at least of some charges: fostering test-induced learning and avoiding test-induced forgetting.
    Little JL; Bjork EL; Bjork RA; Angello G
    Psychol Sci; 2012; 23(11):1337-44. PubMed ID: 23034566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of testing on subsequent re-encoding and long-term forgetting of action-relevant materials: On the influence of recall type.
    Kubik V; Nilsson LG; Olofsson JK; Jönsson FU
    Scand J Psychol; 2015 Oct; 56(5):475-81. PubMed ID: 26243692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Benefits of testing for nontested information: retrieval-induced facilitation of episodically bound material.
    Rowland CA; DeLosh EL
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2014 Dec; 21(6):1516-23. PubMed ID: 24671778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Pretesting can be beneficial even when using the internet to answer questions.
    Storm BC; James KK; Stone SM
    Memory; 2022 Apr; 30(4):388-395. PubMed ID: 33596389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A dual memory theory of the testing effect.
    Rickard TC; Pan SC
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Jun; 25(3):847-869. PubMed ID: 28585057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The pretesting effect thrives in the presence of competing information.
    Kliegl O; Bartl J; Bäuml KT
    Memory; 2023 May; 31(5):705-714. PubMed ID: 36927213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier.
    Halamish V; Bjork RA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Jul; 37(4):801-12. PubMed ID: 21480751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of contextual cues in recall and recognition memory: the misinformation effect reconsidered.
    Campbell JM; Edwards MS; Horswill MS; Helman S
    Br J Psychol; 2007 Aug; 98(Pt 3):485-98. PubMed ID: 17705942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fact learning: how information accuracy, delay, and repeated testing change retention and retrieval experience.
    Barber SJ; Rajaram S; Marsh EJ
    Memory; 2008 Nov; 16(8):934-46. PubMed ID: 18949663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Aging, recall and recognition: a study on the sensitivity of the University of Southern California Repeatable Episodic Memory Test (USC-REMT).
    Parker ES; Landau SM; Whipple SC; Schwartz BL
    J Clin Exp Neuropsychol; 2004 May; 26(3):428-40. PubMed ID: 15512931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A little can go a long way: giving learners some context can enhance the benefits of pretesting.
    Overoye AL; James KK; Storm BC
    Memory; 2021 Oct; 29(9):1206-1215. PubMed ID: 34486928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Multiple-choice tests stabilize access to marginal knowledge.
    Cantor AD; Eslick AN; Marsh EJ; Bjork RA; Bjork EL
    Mem Cognit; 2015 Feb; 43(2):193-205. PubMed ID: 25201690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.