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 *

169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29181584)

  • 1. Testing a potential alternative to traditional identification procedures: Reaction time-based concealed information test does not work for lineups with cooperative witnesses.
    Sauerland M; Wolfs ACF; Crans S; Verschuere B
    Psychol Res; 2019 Sep; 83(6):1210-1222. PubMed ID: 29181584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Measuring lineup fairness from eyewitness identification data using a multinomial processing tree model.
    Menne NM; Winter K; Bell R; Buchner A
    Sci Rep; 2023 Apr; 13(1):6290. PubMed ID: 37072473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Diagnosing eyewitness identifications with reaction time‑based Concealed Information Test: the effect of viewpoint congruency between test and encoding.
    Sauerland M; Geven L; Bastiaens A; Verschuere B
    Psychol Res; 2024 Mar; 88(2):639-651. PubMed ID: 37477730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reaction time-based Concealed Information Test in eyewitness identification is moderated by picture similarity but not eyewitness cooperation.
    Georgiadou K; Chronos A; Verschuere B; Sauerland M
    Psychol Res; 2022 Oct; 86(7):2278-2288. PubMed ID: 30635707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Diagnosing eyewitness identifications with reaction time-based concealed information test: the effect of observation time.
    Sauerland M; Koller D; Bastiaens A; Verschuere B
    Psychol Res; 2023 Feb; 87(1):281-293. PubMed ID: 35133492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A perceptual scaling approach to eyewitness identification.
    Gepshtein S; Wang Y; He F; Diep D; Albright TD
    Nat Commun; 2020 Jul; 11(1):3380. PubMed ID: 32665586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure.
    Wells GL; Steblay NK; Dysart JE
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Feb; 39(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 24933175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Do masked-face lineups facilitate eyewitness identification of a masked individual?
    Manley KD; Chan JCK; Wells GL
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2019 Sep; 25(3):396-409. PubMed ID: 30556719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pre-identification confidence is related to eyewitness lineup identification accuracy across heterogeneous encoding conditions.
    Molinaro PF; Charman SD; Wylie K
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Dec; 45(6):524-541. PubMed ID: 34661424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Why are lineups better than showups? A test of the filler siphoning and enhanced discriminability accounts.
    Colloff MF; Wixted JT
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2020 Mar; 26(1):124-143. PubMed ID: 30883151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications.
    Clark SE; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Oct; 32(5):406-22. PubMed ID: 18095147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. New signal detection theory-based framework for eyewitness performance in lineups.
    Lee J; Penrod SD
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Oct; 43(5):436-454. PubMed ID: 31368723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of lineup size on eyewitness identification.
    Akan M; Robinson MM; Mickes L; Wixted JT; Benjamin AS
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2021 Jun; 27(2):369-392. PubMed ID: 33271047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator influence on mistaken identifications.
    Zimmerman DM; Chorn JA; Rhead LM; Evelo AJ; Kovera MB
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2017 Dec; 23(4):460-473. PubMed ID: 29265857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups.
    Mansour JK; Beaudry JL; Bertrand MI; Kalmet N; Melsom EI; Lindsay RCL
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Dec; 44(6):502-515. PubMed ID: 33444064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparing witness performance in the field versus the lab: How real-world conditions affect eyewitness decision-making.
    Eisen ML; Ying RC; Chui C; Swaby MA
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Jun; 46(3):175-188. PubMed ID: 35604705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The single lineup paradigm: A new way to manipulate target presence in eyewitness identification experiments.
    Oriet C; Fitzgerald RJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Feb; 42(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 29461076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Eyewitness identification in simultaneous and sequential lineups: an investigation of position effects using receiver operating characteristics.
    Meisters J; Diedenhofen B; Musch J
    Memory; 2018 Oct; 26(9):1297-1309. PubMed ID: 29676666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Mistaken eyewitness identification rates increase when either witnessing or testing conditions get worse.
    Smith AM; Wilford MM; Quigley-McBride A; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Aug; 43(4):358-368. PubMed ID: 31144829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups.
    Wright DB
    Memory; 2007 Oct; 15(7):746-54. PubMed ID: 17852725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.