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)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Stepping back from 'persistence and relapse' to see the forest: Associative interference.
    Polack CW; Jozefowiez J; Miller RR
    Behav Processes; 2017 Aug; 141(Pt 1):128-136. PubMed ID: 28323076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Associative Prediction of Visual Shape in the Hippocampus.
    Kok P; Turk-Browne NB
    J Neurosci; 2018 Aug; 38(31):6888-6899. PubMed ID: 29986875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Retroactive interference: Counterconditioning and extinction with and without biologically significant outcomes.
    Jozefowiez J; Berruti AS; Moshchenko Y; Peña T; Polack CW; Miller RR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2020 Oct; 46(4):443-459. PubMed ID: 33030955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The fate of redundant cues in human predictive learning: The outcome ratio effect.
    Uengoer M; Lachnit H; Pearce JM
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Aug; 72(8):1945-1960. PubMed ID: 30654727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Learned predictiveness effects in humans: a function of learning, performance, or both?
    Le Pelley ME; Suret MB; Beesley T
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2009 Jul; 35(3):312-27. PubMed ID: 19594278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Outcome maximality and additivity training also influence cue competition in causal learning when learning involves many cues and events.
    Vandorpe S; De Houwer J; Beckers T
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):356-68. PubMed ID: 17366305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. How expectations of pain elicited by consciously and unconsciously perceived cues unfold over time.
    Tu Y; Pantazis D; Wilson G; Khan S; Ahlfors S; Kong J
    Neuroimage; 2021 Jul; 235():117985. PubMed ID: 33762214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The redundancy effect in human causal learning: No evidence for changes in selective attention.
    Jones PM; Zaksaite T
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2018 Aug; 71(8):1748-1760. PubMed ID: 28695765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. How people learn about causal influence when there are many possible causes: A model based on informative transitions.
    Derringer C; Rottman BM
    Cogn Psychol; 2018 May; 102():41-71. PubMed ID: 29358094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Cue-task associations in task switching.
    Gade M; Koch I
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Jun; 60(6):762-9. PubMed ID: 17514592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Explaining learned predictiveness: Roles of attention and integration of associative structures.
    Rodríguez G; Hall G
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2019 Apr; 45(2):163-173. PubMed ID: 30945925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Testing a cue outside the training context increases attention to the contexts and impairs performance in human predictive learning.
    Aristizabal JA; Ramos-Álvarez MM; Callejas-Aguilera JE; Rosas JM
    Behav Processes; 2017 Dec; 145():31-36. PubMed ID: 28993245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Cue-independent forgetting by intentional suppression - Evidence for inhibition as the mechanism of intentional forgetting.
    Wang Y; Cao Z; Zhu Z; Cai H; Wu Y
    Cognition; 2015 Oct; 143():31-5. PubMed ID: 26113446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Associative relationships in human predictive learning.
    Gámez AM; Martos R; Abad MJ; Rosas JM
    Span J Psychol; 2013; 16():E5. PubMed ID: 23866246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Heightened conflict in cue-target translation increases backward inhibition in set switching.
    Grange JA; Houghton G
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2010 Jul; 36(4):1003-9. PubMed ID: 20565215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Theory protection in associative learning: Humans maintain certain beliefs in a manner that violates prediction error.
    Spicer SG; Mitchell CJ; Wills AJ; Jones PM
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2020 Apr; 46(2):151-161. PubMed ID: 31556642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Great expectations: temporal expectation modulates perceptual processing speed.
    Vangkilde S; Coull JT; Bundesen C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Oct; 38(5):1183-91. PubMed ID: 22250866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reminder Cues Modulate the Renewal Effect in Human Predictive Learning.
    Bustamante J; Uengoer M; Lachnit H
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1968. PubMed ID: 28066293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.