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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31307281)

  • 1. How competitive is cue competition?
    Packheiser J; Pusch R; Stein CC; Güntürkün O; Lachnit H; Uengoer M
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2020 Jan; 73(1):104-114. PubMed ID: 31307281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of amygdala lesions on overexpectation phenomena in food cup approach and autoshaping procedures.
    Holland PC
    Behav Neurosci; 2016 Aug; 130(4):357-75. PubMed ID: 27176564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Overexpectation and trial massing.
    Sissons HT; Miller RR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2009 Apr; 35(2):186-96. PubMed ID: 19364228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Stimulus competition between a discrete cue and a training context: Cue competition does not result from the division of a limited resource.
    Urushihara K; Miller RR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2009 Apr; 35(2):197-211. PubMed ID: 19364229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Summation in autoshaping is affected by the similarity of the visual stimuli to the stimulation they replace.
    Pearce JM; Redhead ES; George DN
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2002 Apr; 28(2):175-89. PubMed ID: 11987874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The fate of redundant cues during blocking and a simple discrimination.
    Pearce JM; Dopson JC; Haselgrove M; Esber GR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2012 Apr; 38(2):167-79. PubMed ID: 22486755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Blocking is not 'pure' cue competition: Renewal-like effects in forward and backward blocking indicate contributions by associative cue interference.
    Miguez G; Miller RR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2022 Apr; 48(2):145-159. PubMed ID: 35225640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Duration of signals for intertrial reinforcement and nonreinforcement in random control procedures.
    Cooper LD; Aronson L; Balsam PD; Gibbon J
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 1990 Jan; 16(1):14-26. PubMed ID: 2303790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Most directed forgetting in pigeons can be attributed to the absence of reinforcement on forget trials during training or to other procedural artifacts.
    Zentall TR; Roper KL; Sherburne LM
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1995 Mar; 63(2):127-37. PubMed ID: 7714447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Discrimination and differentiation of response number in stimulus directed pecking of pigeons.
    Dodd PW
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1980 Mar; 33(2):253-64. PubMed ID: 7365408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Choice as a dependent measure in autoshaping: sensitivity to frequency and duration of food presentation.
    Picker M; Poling A
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1982 May; 37(3):393-406. PubMed ID: 7097152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Retrospective revaluation of associative retroactive cue interference.
    Miguez G; Laborda MA; Miller RR
    Learn Behav; 2014 Mar; 42(1):47-57. PubMed ID: 24142799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Causal superlearning arising from interactions among cues.
    Urushihara K; Miller RR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2017 Apr; 43(2):183-196. PubMed ID: 28383940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation in autoshaping with pigeons.
    Khallad Y; Moore J
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1996 May; 65(3):575-91. PubMed ID: 16812810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The fate of redundant cues: Further analysis of the redundancy effect.
    Jones PM; Pearce JM
    Learn Behav; 2015 Mar; 43(1):72-82. PubMed ID: 25537840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Stimulus and temporal cues in classical conditioning.
    Kirkpatrick K; Church RM
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2000 Apr; 26(2):206-19. PubMed ID: 10782435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Trial spacing is a determinant of cue interaction.
    Stout SC; Chang R; Miller RR
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2003 Jan; 29(1):23-38. PubMed ID: 12561131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cue duration determines response rate but not rate of acquisition of Pavlovian conditioning in mice.
    Austen JM; Sanderson DJ
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2020 Nov; 73(11):2026-2035. PubMed ID: 32662337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Acquisition with partial and continuous reinforcement in pigeon autoshaping.
    Gottlieb DA
    Learn Behav; 2004 Aug; 32(3):321-34. PubMed ID: 15672827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Bridging temporal gaps between CS and US in autoshaping: insertion of other stimuli before, during, and after CS.
    Kaplan PS; Hearst E
    J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 1982 Apr; 8(2):187-203. PubMed ID: 7069378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.