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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31242534)

  • 1. An account of subjective probability judgment for joint events: Conjunctive and disjunctive.
    Fisk JE; Marshall DA; Rogers P; Stock R
    Scand J Psychol; 2019 Oct; 60(5):405-420. PubMed ID: 31242534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reasoning about complex probabilistic concepts in childhood.
    Fisk JE; Bury AS; Holden R
    Scand J Psychol; 2006 Dec; 47(6):497-504. PubMed ID: 17107498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reasoning about conjunctive probabilistic concepts in childhood.
    Fisk JE; Slattery R
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2005 Sep; 59(3):168-78. PubMed ID: 16248496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Judgments under uncertainty: representativeness or potential surprise?
    Fisk JE
    Br J Psychol; 2002 Nov; 93(Pt 4):431-49. PubMed ID: 12519527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Exploring the overestimation of conjunctive probabilities.
    Nilsson H; Rieskamp J; Jenny MA
    Front Psychol; 2013; 4():101. PubMed ID: 23460026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Surprising rationality in probability judgment: Assessing two competing models.
    Costello F; Watts P; Fisher C
    Cognition; 2018 Jan; 170():280-297. PubMed ID: 29096329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. People's conditional probability judgments follow probability theory (plus noise).
    Costello F; Watts P
    Cogn Psychol; 2016 Sep; 89():106-33. PubMed ID: 27570097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: probability versus inductive confirmation.
    Tentori K; Crupi V; Russo S
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2013 Feb; 142(1):235-255. PubMed ID: 22823498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Inferring conjunctive probabilities from noisy samples: evidence for the configural weighted average model.
    Jenny MA; Rieskamp J; Nilsson H
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2014 Jan; 40(1):203-17. PubMed ID: 24128388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Naive Probability: Model-Based Estimates of Unique Events.
    Khemlani SS; Lotstein M; Johnson-Laird PN
    Cogn Sci; 2015 Aug; 39(6):1216-58. PubMed ID: 25363706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Are conjunctive inferences easier than disjunctive inferences? A comparison of rules and models.
    García-Madruga JA; Moreno S; Carriedo N; Gutiérrez F; Johnson-Laird PN
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2001 May; 54(2):613-32. PubMed ID: 11394065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Enhancing Analytical Reasoning in the Intensive Care Unit.
    Barash M; Nanchal RS
    Crit Care Clin; 2022 Jan; 38(1):51-67. PubMed ID: 34794631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The conjunction fallacy, confirmation, and quantum theory: comment on Tentori, Crupi, and Russo (2013).
    Busemeyer JR; Wang Z; Pothos EM; Trueblood JS
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2015 Feb; 144(1):236-43. PubMed ID: 25621376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Probability Theory Plus Noise: Descriptive Estimation and Inferential Judgment.
    Costello F; Watts P
    Top Cogn Sci; 2018 Jan; 10(1):192-208. PubMed ID: 29383882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A quantum theory account of order effects and conjunction fallacies in political judgments.
    Yearsley JM; Trueblood JS
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Aug; 25(4):1517-1525. PubMed ID: 28879495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The role of causal models in multiple judgments under uncertainty.
    Hayes BK; Hawkins GE; Newell BR; Pasqualino M; Rehder B
    Cognition; 2014 Dec; 133(3):611-20. PubMed ID: 25238316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Random variation and systematic biases in probability estimation.
    Howe R; Costello F
    Cogn Psychol; 2020 Dec; 123():101306. PubMed ID: 33189032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Does the inclusive disjunction really mean the conjunction of possibilities?
    Wang M; Zheng L
    Cognition; 2021 Mar; 208():104551. PubMed ID: 33360077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors.
    Busemeyer JR; Pothos EM; Franco R; Trueblood JS
    Psychol Rev; 2011 Apr; 118(2):193-218. PubMed ID: 21480739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Surprisingly rational: probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment.
    Costello F; Watts P
    Psychol Rev; 2014 Jul; 121(3):463-80. PubMed ID: 25090427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.