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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29154562)

  • 1. Psychophysics of associative learning: Quantitative properties of subjective contingency.
    Maia S; Lefèvre F; Jozefowiez J
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2018 Jan; 44(1):67-81. PubMed ID: 29154562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The psychophysics of contingency assessment.
    Allan LG; Hannah SD; Crump MJ; Siegel S
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2008 May; 137(2):226-43. PubMed ID: 18473655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Signal detection analysis of contingency assessment: Associative interference and nonreinforcement impact cue-outcome contingency sensitivity, whereas cue density affects bias.
    Jozefowiez J; Urcelay GP; Miller RR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2022 Jul; 48(3):190-202. PubMed ID: 35878081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cue-interaction effects in contingency judgments using the streamed-trial procedure.
    Hannah SD; Crump MJ; Allan LG; Siegel S
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2009 Jun; 63(2):103-12. PubMed ID: 19485601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Individual differences in the perception of cue-outcome contingencies: A signal detection analysis.
    Jozefowiez J
    Behav Processes; 2021 Jul; 188():104398. PubMed ID: 33905881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Associative interference and nonreinforcement in human contingency learning.
    Jozefowiez J; Witnauer JE; Huang J; Silverstein JW; Woltag S; Chew S; Miller RR
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2023 Dec; ():17470218231220365. PubMed ID: 38053323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The criterion-calibration model of cue interaction in contingency judgments.
    Hannah SD; Allan LG
    Learn Behav; 2011 May; 39(2):171-90. PubMed ID: 21308428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Contingency bias in probability judgement may arise from ambiguity regarding additional causes.
    Mitchell CJ; Griffiths O; More P; Lovibond PF
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013 Sep; 66(9):1675-86. PubMed ID: 23350876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser?
    Alloy LB; Abramson LY
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 1979 Dec; 108(4):441-85. PubMed ID: 528910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Positive and negative mediation as a function of whether the absent cue was previously associated with the outcome.
    Castro L; Matute H
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Dec; 63(12):2359-75. PubMed ID: 20603776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Determinants of extinction in a streamed trial procedure.
    Witnauer JE; Castiello S; Fung E; Pitliya RJ; Murphy RA; Miller RR
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2023 May; 76(5):1155-1176. PubMed ID: 35722785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Relative salience versus relative validity: cue salience influences blocking in human associative learning.
    Le Pelley ME; Beesley T; Griffiths O
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2014 Jan; 40(1):116-32. PubMed ID: 24099508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Interactive effects of the probability of the cue and the probability of the outcome on the overestimation of null contingency.
    Blanco F; Matute H; Vadillo MA
    Learn Behav; 2013 Dec; 41(4):333-40. PubMed ID: 23529636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Partial reinforcement and context switch effects in human predictive learning.
    Abad MJ; Ramos-Alvarez MM; Rosas JM
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Jan; 62(1):174-88. PubMed ID: 18609387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.
    Chapman GB; Robbins SJ
    Mem Cognit; 1990 Sep; 18(5):537-45. PubMed ID: 2233266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effects of cognitive load during intertrial intervals on judgements of control: The role of working memory and contextual learning.
    Cavus HA; Msetfi RM
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2016 Nov; 171():47-56. PubMed ID: 27662425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Forward blocking in human learning sometimes reflects the failure to encode a cue-outcome relationship.
    Mitchell CJ; Lovibond PF; Minard E; Lavis Y
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2006 May; 59(5):830-44. PubMed ID: 16608749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgements than on causal judgements.
    De Houwer J; Vandorpe S; Beckers T
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):418-32. PubMed ID: 17366309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Aging and associative binding in contingency learning.
    Mutter SA; Arnold JP
    Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn; 2021 Sep; 28(5):701-716. PubMed ID: 32873125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Predictions and causal estimations are not supported by the same associative structure.
    Vadillo MA; Matute H
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):433-47. PubMed ID: 17366310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.