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 *

209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28405958)

  • 1. Previously acquired cue-outcome structural knowledge guides new learning: Evidence from the retroactive-interference-between-cues effect.
    Luque D; Morís J; López FJ; Cobos PL
    Mem Cognit; 2017 Aug; 45(6):916-931. PubMed ID: 28405958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Neural correlates of cue predictiveness during intentional and incidental associative learning: A time-frequency study.
    Do Carmo-Blanco N; Allen JJB
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2019 Sep; 143():80-87. PubMed ID: 31254544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Learned changes in outcome associability.
    Quigley MC; Eatherington CJ; Haselgrove M
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Feb; 72(2):209-221. PubMed ID: 28627301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Interference between cues of the same outcome in a non-causally framed scenario.
    Luque D; Morís J; Cobos PL; López FJ
    Behav Processes; 2009 Jun; 81(2):328-32. PubMed ID: 19070656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The onset of uncertainty facilitates the learning of new associations by increasing attention to cues.
    Easdale LC; Le Pelley ME; Beesley T
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Feb; 72(2):193-208. PubMed ID: 28766369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Enhancement and reduction of associative retroactive cue interference by training in multiple contexts.
    Miguez G; Laborda MA; Miller RR
    Learn Behav; 2014 Dec; 42(4):318-29. PubMed ID: 25035103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Testing the automaticity of an attentional bias towards predictive cues in human associative learning.
    Luque D; Molinero S; Jevtović M; Beesley T
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2020 May; 73(5):762-780. PubMed ID: 31826714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Retrospective revaluation of associative retroactive cue interference.
    Miguez G; Laborda MA; Miller RR
    Learn Behav; 2014 Mar; 42(1):47-57. PubMed ID: 24142799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Interference between cues of the same outcome depends on the causal interpretation of the events.
    Cobos PL; López FJ; Luque D
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):369-86. PubMed ID: 17366306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Dorsolateral striatum is critical for the expression of surprise-induced enhancements in cue associability.
    Asem JS; Schiffino FL; Holland PC
    Eur J Neurosci; 2015 Sep; 42(5):2203-13. PubMed ID: 26108257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Interactions between the elements of an outcome in human associative learning.
    Quigley M; Haselgrove M
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2020 Jul; 46(3):297-313. PubMed ID: 32730083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. From Anticipation to the Experience of Pain: The Importance of Visceral Versus Somatic Pain Modality in Neural and Behavioral Responses to Pain-Predictive Cues.
    Koenen LR; Icenhour A; Forkmann K; Theysohn N; Forsting M; Bingel U; Elsenbruch S
    Psychosom Med; 2018; 80(9):826-835. PubMed ID: 29870435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Experiencing extinction with a non-target cue facilitates reversal of a target conditioned inhibitor in human predictive learning.
    González G; Alcalá JA; Callejas-Aguilera JE; Rosas JM
    Behav Processes; 2019 Sep; 166():103898. PubMed ID: 31265879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Extracting functional equivalence from reversing contingencies.
    Liljeholm M; Balleine BW
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2010 Apr; 36(2):165-71. PubMed ID: 20384397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Spontaneous recovery and ABC renewal from retroactive cue interference.
    Miguez G; Cham HX; Miller RR
    Learn Behav; 2012 Mar; 40(1):42-53. PubMed ID: 21881896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The outcome predictability bias is evident in overt attention.
    Griffiths O; Le Pelley ME
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2019 Jul; 45(3):290-300. PubMed ID: 31070432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Attention and temporal expectations modulate power, not phase, of ongoing alpha oscillations.
    van Diepen RM; Cohen MX; Denys D; Mazaheri A
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2015 Aug; 27(8):1573-86. PubMed ID: 25774428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reversing the relationship between a nontarget cue and the outcome facilitates subsequent human predictive learning.
    González G; Alcalá JA; Ogállar PM; Rosas JM; Callejas-Aguilera JE
    Behav Processes; 2021 Dec; 193():104529. PubMed ID: 34634384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Selective attention in human associative learning and recognition memory.
    Griffiths O; Mitchell CJ
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2008 Nov; 137(4):626-48. PubMed ID: 18999357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A test for a difference in the associability of blocked and uninformative cues in human predictive learning.
    Uengoer M; Dwyer DM; Koenig S; Pearce JM
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Feb; 72(2):222-237. PubMed ID: 28649906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.