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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30802076)

  • 21. On the validity of remember-know judgments: evidence from think aloud protocols.
    McCabe DP; Geraci L; Boman JK; Sensenig AE; Rhodes MG
    Conscious Cogn; 2011 Dec; 20(4):1625-33. PubMed ID: 21963257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Manipulating the depth of processing reveals the relevance of second eye fixations for recollection but not familiarity.
    Schwedes C; Scherer D; Wentura D
    Psychol Res; 2020 Nov; 84(8):2237-2247. PubMed ID: 31236764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Pupil dilation during recognition reflects the subjective recollection/familiarity experience at test rather than the level of processing at encoding.
    Taikh A; Bodner GE
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2022 Sep; 76(3):186-192. PubMed ID: 35549359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Recollection is fast and slow.
    Brainerd CJ; Nakamura K; Lee WA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 Feb; 45(2):302-319. PubMed ID: 29698044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Subjective experiences of recognizing and not recognizing paintings and words.
    Fallow KM; Lindsay DS
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2022 Sep; 76(3):218-225. PubMed ID: 35901373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Critical tests of the continuous dual-process model of recognition.
    Cha J; Dobbins IG
    Cognition; 2021 Oct; 215():104827. PubMed ID: 34229131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Responses improve the accuracy of confidence judgements in memory tasks.
    Siedlecka M; Skóra Z; Paulewicz B; Fijałkowska S; Timmermans B; Wierzchoń M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 Apr; 45(4):712-723. PubMed ID: 29999396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Dissociating appraisals of accuracy and recollection in autobiographical remembering.
    Scoboria A; Pascal L
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2016 Jul; 42(7):1068-77. PubMed ID: 26866659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Recollection and familiarity for words and faces: a study comparing Remember-Know judgements and the Process Dissociation Procedure.
    Espinosa-García M; Vaquero JM; Milliken B; Tudela P
    Memory; 2017 Jan; 25(1):19-34. PubMed ID: 26695108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Looking for graded recollection: manipulating the number of details to be recollected does not affect recollection variance.
    Parks CM
    Mem Cognit; 2015 Feb; 43(2):164-79. PubMed ID: 25324045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Processing fluency affects subjective claims of recollection.
    Kurilla BP; Westerman DL
    Mem Cognit; 2008 Jan; 36(1):82-92. PubMed ID: 18323065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Behavioural pattern separation is strongly associated with familiarity-based decisions.
    Szőllősi Á; Bencze D; Racsmány M
    Memory; 2020 Mar; 28(3):337-347. PubMed ID: 31955670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A continuous source reinstatement model of true and false recollection.
    Johns BT; Jones MN; Mewhort DJK
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2021 Mar; 75(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 33856823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The role of recollection and familiarity in visual working memory: A mixture of threshold and signal detection processes.
    Yonelinas AP
    Psychol Rev; 2024 Mar; 131(2):321-348. PubMed ID: 37326544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Subjective experience guides betting decisions beyond accuracy: evidence from a metamemory illusion.
    Hembacher E; Ghetti S
    Memory; 2017 May; 25(5):575-585. PubMed ID: 27315009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Different definitions of the nonrecollection-based response option(s) change how people use the "remember" response in the remember/know paradigm.
    Williams HL; Lindsay DS
    Mem Cognit; 2019 Oct; 47(7):1359-1374. PubMed ID: 31119498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Recognition, remember-know, and confidence judgments: no evidence of cross-contamination here!
    Williams HL; Bodner GE; Lindsay DS
    Memory; 2023 Aug; 31(7):905-917. PubMed ID: 37165509
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Suppressing but not intensifying emotion decreases arousal and subjective sense of recollection.
    Antypa D; Vuilleumier P; Rimmele U
    Emotion; 2019 Sep; 19(6):950-963. PubMed ID: 30234332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The contributions of spatial context and imagery to the recollection of single words.
    Lalla A; Robin J; Moscovitch M
    Hippocampus; 2020 Aug; 30(8):865-878. PubMed ID: 31782859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. An integrative memory model of recollection and familiarity to understand memory deficits.
    Bastin C; Besson G; Simon J; Delhaye E; Geurten M; Willems S; Salmon E
    Behav Brain Sci; 2019 Feb; 42():e281. PubMed ID: 30719958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.