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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28608292)

  • 1. Sex Differences on the Go/No-Go Test of Inhibition.
    Sjoberg EA; Cole GG
    Arch Sex Behav; 2018 Feb; 47(2):537-542. PubMed ID: 28608292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Sex differences in inhibitory control in socially-housed baboons (Papio papio).
    Lacreuse A; Gullstrand J; Fagot J
    Behav Brain Res; 2016 Oct; 312():231-7. PubMed ID: 27321783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Sex differences in emotional contexts modulation on response inhibition.
    Ramos-Loyo J; Angulo-Chavira A; Llamas-Alonso LA; González-Garrido AA
    Neuropsychologia; 2016 Oct; 91():290-298. PubMed ID: 27565638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Deficits in go/no-go task performance in male undergraduate high-risk alcohol users are driven by speeded responding to go stimuli.
    Zhao X; Qian W; Fu L; Maes JHR
    Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse; 2017 Nov; 43(6):656-663. PubMed ID: 28510498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Response inhibition toward alcohol-related cues using an alcohol go/no-go task in problem and non-problem drinkers.
    Kreusch F; Vilenne A; Quertemont E
    Addict Behav; 2013 Oct; 38(10):2520-8. PubMed ID: 23773960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Male Smokers' and Non-Smokers' Response Inhibition in Go/No-Go Tasks: Effect of Three Task Parameters.
    Zhao X; Liu X; Zan X; Jin G; Maes JH
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(8):e0160595. PubMed ID: 27500831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effects of fetal alcohol syndrome on response execution and inhibition: an event-related potential study.
    Burden MJ; Andrew C; Saint-Amour D; Meintjes EM; Molteno CD; Hoyme HE; Robinson LK; Khaole N; Nelson CA; Jacobson JL; Jacobson SW
    Alcohol Clin Exp Res; 2009 Nov; 33(11):1994-2004. PubMed ID: 19719791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Prepotent motor activity and inhibitory control demands in different variants of the go/no-go paradigm.
    Wessel JR
    Psychophysiology; 2018 Mar; 55(3):. PubMed ID: 28390090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Resisting distraction and response inhibition trigger similar enhancements of future performance.
    Bissett PG; Grant LD; Weissman DH
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2017 Oct; 180():40-51. PubMed ID: 28843207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Go-activation endures following the presentation of a stop-signal: evidence from startle.
    Drummond NM; Cressman EK; Carlsen AN
    J Neurophysiol; 2017 Jan; 117(1):403-411. PubMed ID: 27832599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Go-stimuli proportion influences response strategy in a sustained attention to response task.
    Wilson KM; Finkbeiner KM; de Joux NR; Russell PN; Helton WS
    Exp Brain Res; 2016 Oct; 234(10):2989-98. PubMed ID: 27329605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Parental investment theory and gender differences in the evolution of inhibition mechanisms.
    Bjorklund DF; Kipp K
    Psychol Bull; 1996 Sep; 120(2):163-88. PubMed ID: 8831295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Spatiotemporal characterization of response inhibition.
    Albert J; López-Martín S; Hinojosa JA; Carretié L
    Neuroimage; 2013 Aug; 76():272-81. PubMed ID: 23523776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A dual but asymmetric role of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex in response inhibition and switching from a non-salient to salient action.
    Manza P; Hu S; Chao HH; Zhang S; Leung HC; Li CR
    Neuroimage; 2016 Jul; 134():466-474. PubMed ID: 27126003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Stroop Task Sex Difference: Evolved Inhibition or Color Naming?
    Sjoberg EA; Wilner RG; D'Souza A; Cole GG
    Arch Sex Behav; 2023 Jan; 52(1):315-323. PubMed ID: 36261735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evidence for selective adjustments of inhibitory control in a variant of the stop signal task.
    Xu KZ; Mayse JD; Courtney S
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 Apr; 72(4):818-831. PubMed ID: 29589791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Do all inhibitions act alike? A study of go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms.
    Littman R; Takács Á
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0186774. PubMed ID: 29065184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of variability of sequence length of go trials preceding a stop trial on ability of response inhibition in stop-signal task.
    Hiraoka K; Kinoshita A; Kunimura H; Matsuoka M
    Somatosens Mot Res; 2018 Jun; 35(2):95-102. PubMed ID: 29848189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Functional dissociation in right inferior frontal cortex during performance of go/no-go task.
    Chikazoe J; Jimura K; Asari T; Yamashita K; Morimoto H; Hirose S; Miyashita Y; Konishi S
    Cereb Cortex; 2009 Jan; 19(1):146-52. PubMed ID: 18445602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Stopping at the sight of food - How gender and obesity impact on response inhibition.
    Mühlberg C; Mathar D; Villringer A; Horstmann A; Neumann J
    Appetite; 2016 Dec; 107():663-676. PubMed ID: 27592420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.