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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27709985)

  • 1. Isolating component processes of posterror slowing with the psychological refractory period paradigm.
    Steinhauser M; Ernst B; Ibald KW
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 Apr; 43(4):653-659. PubMed ID: 27709985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Central interference in driving: is there any stopping the psychological refractory period?
    Levy J; Pashler H; Boer E
    Psychol Sci; 2006 Mar; 17(3):228-35. PubMed ID: 16507063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Decoding the task specificity of post-error adjustments: Features and determinants.
    Li Q; Wang J; Meng Z; Chen Y; Zhang M; Hu N; Chen X; Chen A
    Neuroimage; 2024 Aug; 297():120692. PubMed ID: 38897398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Slowing after Observed Error Transfers across Tasks.
    Wang L; Pan W; Tan J; Liu C; Chen A
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(3):e0149836. PubMed ID: 26934579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cross-modal psychological refractory period in vision, audition, and haptics.
    Rau PP; Zheng J
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 May; 82(4):1573-1585. PubMed ID: 32052346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. False external feedback modulates posterror slowing and the f-P300: implications for theories of posterror adjustment.
    Saunders B; Jentzsch I
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2012 Dec; 19(6):1210-6. PubMed ID: 22987148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A startling acoustic stimulus interferes with upcoming motor preparation: Evidence for a startle refractory period.
    Maslovat D; Chua R; Carlsen AN; May C; Forgaard CJ; Franks IM
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2015 Jun; 158():36-42. PubMed ID: 25919668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Investigating dual-task interference in children versus young adults with the overlapping task paradigm.
    Strobach T; Karbach J
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2020 Sep; 197():104866. PubMed ID: 32531496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A neuropsychological assessment of dual-task costs in closed-head injury patients using Cohen's effect size estimation method.
    Dell'Acqua R; Sessa P; Pashler H
    Psychol Res; 2006 Nov; 70(6):553-61. PubMed ID: 16142490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Stress improves task processing efficiency in dual-tasks.
    Beste C; Yildiz A; Meissner TW; Wolf OT
    Behav Brain Res; 2013 Sep; 252():260-5. PubMed ID: 23769959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The source of execution-related dual-task interference: motor bottleneck or response monitoring?
    Bratzke D; Rolke B; Ulrich R
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2009 Oct; 35(5):1413-26. PubMed ID: 19803646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dual-task interference and response strategies in simulated car driving: impact of first-task characteristics on the psychological refractory period effect.
    Bock O; Wechsler K; Koch I; Schubert T
    Psychol Res; 2021 Mar; 85(2):568-576. PubMed ID: 31776662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Are processing limitations of visual attention and response selection subject to the same bottleneck in dual-tasks?
    Reimer CB; Strobach T; Frensch PA; Schubert T
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2015 May; 77(4):1052-69. PubMed ID: 25810162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Asymmetric interference in concurrent time-to-contact estimation: Cousin or twin of the psychological refractory period effect?
    Baurès R; DeLucia PR; Olson M; Oberfeld D
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2017 Feb; 79(2):698-711. PubMed ID: 27896708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The cognitive loci of the display and task-relevant set size effects on distractor interference: Evidence from a dual-task paradigm.
    Park BY; Kim S; Cho YS
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2018 Feb; 80(2):337-351. PubMed ID: 29124674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speeding before and slowing after errors: is it all just strategy?
    Dudschig C; Jentzsch I
    Brain Res; 2009 Nov; 1296():56-62. PubMed ID: 19679114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Separating limits on preparation versus online processing in multitasking paradigms: Evidence for resource models.
    Mittelstädt V; Miller J
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2017 Jan; 43(1):89-102. PubMed ID: 27808552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dual route for subtask order control: Evidence from the psychological refractory paradigm.
    Luria R; Meiran N
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2006 Apr; 59(4):720-44. PubMed ID: 16707359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Does the central bottleneck encompass voluntary selection of hedonically based choices?
    Pashler H; Harris CR; Nuechterlein KH
    Exp Psychol; 2008; 55(5):313-21. PubMed ID: 25116298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.