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 *

168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30487094)

  • 21. A spectral power analysis of driving behavior changes during the transition from nondistraction to distraction.
    Wang Y; Bao S; Du W; Ye Z; Sayer JR
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2017 Nov; 18(8):826-831. PubMed ID: 28534644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Focusing on attention: the effects of working memory capacity and load on selective attention.
    Ahmed L; de Fockert JW
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(8):e43101. PubMed ID: 22952636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Self-regulation of driving speed among distracted drivers: An application of driver behavioral adaptation theory.
    Oviedo-Trespalacios O; Haque MM; King M; Washington S
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2017 Aug; 18(6):599-605. PubMed ID: 28095026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Individual differences in working-memory capacity and task resumption following interruptions.
    Foroughi CK; Werner NE; McKendrick R; Cades DM; Boehm-Davis DA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2016 Sep; 42(9):1480-8. PubMed ID: 26882286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Auditory distraction in school-age children relative to individual differences in working memory capacity.
    Nagaraj NK; Magimairaj BM; Schwartz S
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Oct; 82(7):3581-3593. PubMed ID: 32494910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Age differences in the takeover of vehicle control and engagement in non-driving-related activities in simulated driving with conditional automation.
    Clark H; Feng J
    Accid Anal Prev; 2017 Sep; 106():468-479. PubMed ID: 27686942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Identifying cognitive distraction using steering wheel reversal rates.
    Kountouriotis GK; Spyridakos P; Carsten OMJ; Merat N
    Accid Anal Prev; 2016 Nov; 96():39-45. PubMed ID: 27497055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Dissociable mechanisms underlying individual differences in visual working memory capacity.
    Gulbinaite R; Johnson A; de Jong R; Morey CC; van Rijn H
    Neuroimage; 2014 Oct; 99():197-206. PubMed ID: 24878830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Working memory capacity and intra-individual variability of proactive control.
    Wiemers EA; Redick TS
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Jan; 182():21-31. PubMed ID: 29127776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Mechanisms behind distracted driving behavior: The role of age and executive function in the engagement of distracted driving.
    Pope CN; Bell TR; Stavrinos D
    Accid Anal Prev; 2017 Jan; 98():123-129. PubMed ID: 27716494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Driving under the influence of distraction: Examining dissociations between risk perception and engagement in distracted driving.
    Rupp MA; Gentzler MD; Smither JA
    Accid Anal Prev; 2016 Dec; 97():220-230. PubMed ID: 27661403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Individual differences in working memory capacity and distractor processing: possible contribution of top-down inhibitory control.
    Minamoto T; Osaka M; Osaka N
    Brain Res; 2010 Jun; 1335():63-73. PubMed ID: 20381462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A parametric duration model of the reaction times of drivers distracted by mobile phone conversations.
    Haque MM; Washington S
    Accid Anal Prev; 2014 Jan; 62():42-53. PubMed ID: 24129320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Cognitive control in context: working memory capacity and proactive control.
    Redick TS
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2014 Jan; 145():1-9. PubMed ID: 24240136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A locus coeruleus-norepinephrine account of individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control.
    Unsworth N; Robison MK
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2017 Aug; 24(4):1282-1311. PubMed ID: 28108977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Individual differences in working memory capacity predict visual attention allocation.
    Bleckley MK; Durso FT; Crutchfield JM; Engle RW; Khanna MM
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2003 Dec; 10(4):884-9. PubMed ID: 15000535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Lapsed attention to elapsed time? Individual differences in working memory capacity and temporal reproduction.
    Broadway JM; Engle RW
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2011 May; 137(1):115-26. PubMed ID: 21470583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Working memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure.
    Wood G; Vine SJ; Wilson MR
    Psychol Res; 2016 Jul; 80(4):510-7. PubMed ID: 26021749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Individual differences in working memory capacity predict retrieval-induced forgetting.
    Aslan A; Bäuml KH
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Jan; 37(1):264-9. PubMed ID: 21090906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Individual differences in the delayed execution of prospective memories.
    Ball BH; Knight JB; Dewitt MR; Brewer GA
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013; 66(12):2411-25. PubMed ID: 23679085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.