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 *

247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30511233)

  • 1. Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review.
    Schmidt JR
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2019 Jun; 26(3):753-771. PubMed ID: 30511233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Context-specific proportion congruent effects: Compound-cue contingency learning in disguise.
    Schmidt JR; Lemercier C
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 May; 72(5):1119-1130. PubMed ID: 29926760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Event-related potential indices of congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds.
    Larson MJ; Clayson PE; Kirwan CB; Weissman DH
    Psychophysiology; 2016 Jun; 53(6):814-22. PubMed ID: 26854028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model: dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm.
    Schmidt JR
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2013 Jan; 142(1):119-26. PubMed ID: 23261421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Time-out for conflict monitoring theory: Preventing rhythmic biases eliminates the list-level proportion congruent effect.
    Schmidt JR
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2017 Mar; 71(1):52-62. PubMed ID: 27977230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Item-specific control of attention in the Stroop task: Contingency learning is not the whole story in the item-specific proportion-congruent effect.
    Spinelli G; Lupker SJ
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Apr; 48(3):426-435. PubMed ID: 31705394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Contingency learning is not affected by conflict experience: Evidence from a task conflict-free, item-specific Stroop paradigm.
    Levin Y; Tzelgov J
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2016 Feb; 164():39-45. PubMed ID: 26720099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The congruency sequence effect 3.0: a critical test of conflict adaptation.
    Duthoo W; Abrahamse EL; Braem S; Boehler CN; Notebaert W
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(10):e110462. PubMed ID: 25340396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict.
    Lamers MJ; Roelofs A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Jun; 64(6):1056-81. PubMed ID: 21113864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects.
    Bugg JM; Jacoby LL; Chanani S
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2011 Jun; 37(3):844-59. PubMed ID: 20718569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Context-Specific Proportion Congruency Effects: An Episodic Learning Account and Computational Model.
    Schmidt JR
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1806. PubMed ID: 27899907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Now you see it, now you don't: controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect.
    Schmidt JR; De Houwer J
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2011 Sep; 138(1):176-86. PubMed ID: 21745649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Proportion congruency and practice: A contingency learning account of asymmetric list shifting effects.
    Schmidt JR
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2016 Sep; 42(9):1496-505. PubMed ID: 27585071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Questioning conflict adaptation: proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered.
    Schmidt JR
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2013 Aug; 20(4):615-30. PubMed ID: 23325703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Robust evidence for proactive conflict adaptation in the proportion-congruent paradigm.
    Spinelli G; Lupker SJ
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2023 May; 49(5):675-700. PubMed ID: 35787140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Multiple expectancies underlie the congruency sequence effect in confound-minimized tasks.
    Erb CD; Aschenbrenner AJ
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2019 Jul; 198():102869. PubMed ID: 31228719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Conflict-monitoring theory in overtime: Is temporal learning a viable explanation for the congruency sequence effect?
    Spinelli G; Lupker SJ
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2022 May; 48(5):497-530. PubMed ID: 35389710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds.
    Schmidt JR; Weissman DH
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(7):e102337. PubMed ID: 25019526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The role of contingency and correlation in the Stroop task.
    Hasshim N; Parris BA
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2021 Oct; 74(10):1657-1668. PubMed ID: 34190618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cognitive control during a spatial Stroop task: Comparing conflict monitoring and prediction of response-outcome theories.
    Pires L; Leitão J; Guerrini C; Simões MR
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Sep; 189():63-75. PubMed ID: 28683927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.