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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31343190)

  • 1. Freely-selected and forced-choice responses bind with relevant object-occupied locations in visuospatial tasks.
    Kajaste B; Buckolz E
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2019 Dec; 73(4):242-253. PubMed ID: 31343190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The preservation of response inhibition aftereffects in a location-based spatial negative priming task: younger versus older adults.
    Buckolz E; Lok M; Kajaste B; Edgar C; Khan M
    Psychol Res; 2015 Jan; 79(1):120-33. PubMed ID: 24531862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Stimulus-response links and the backward crosstalk effect - A comparison of forced- and free-choice tasks.
    Naefgen C; Caissie AF; Janczyk M
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2017 Jun; 177():23-29. PubMed ID: 28448839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Retrieval of bindings between task-irrelevant stimuli and responses can facilitate behaviour under conditions of high response certainty.
    Horner AJ
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2016; 69(3):561-73. PubMed ID: 26085119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of the irrelevant location of the response signal on choice reaction time: an electromyographic study in humans.
    Hasbroucq T; Possamaï CA; Bonnet M; Vidal F
    Psychophysiology; 1999 Jul; 36(4):522-6. PubMed ID: 10432802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Stimulus-response correspondence in go-nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?
    Lien MC; Pedersen L; Proctor RW
    Psychol Res; 2016 Nov; 80(6):912-934. PubMed ID: 26318437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Choice and stimulus-response compatibility affect duration of response selection.
    Dassonville P; Lewis SM; Foster HE; Ashe J
    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 1999 Jan; 7(3):235-40. PubMed ID: 9838139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reaching into response selection: Stimulus and response similarity influence central operations.
    Wifall T; Buss AT; Farmer TA; Spencer JP; Hazeltine E
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2017 Mar; 43(3):555-568. PubMed ID: 28080115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Stimulus-response correspondence across peripersonal space is unaffected by chronic unilateral limb loss.
    Philip BA; Frey SH
    Exp Brain Res; 2013 Feb; 224(3):373-82. PubMed ID: 23138521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Staying within the lines: the formation of visuospatial boundaries influences multisensory feature integration.
    Fiebelkorn IC; Foxe JJ; Schwartz TH; Molholm S
    Eur J Neurosci; 2010 May; 31(10):1737-43. PubMed ID: 20584177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings.
    Göthe K; Oberauer K; Kliegl R
    Cognition; 2016 May; 150():92-108. PubMed ID: 26878090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Free choice tasks as random generation tasks: an investigation through working memory manipulations.
    Naefgen C; Janczyk M
    Exp Brain Res; 2018 Aug; 236(8):2263-2275. PubMed ID: 29850924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Stimulus-response compatibility for mixed mappings and tasks with unique responses.
    Proctor RW; Vu KP
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Feb; 63(2):320-40. PubMed ID: 19526436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Response-response binding across effector-set switches.
    Moeller B; Frings C
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2019 Dec; 26(6):1974-1979. PubMed ID: 31654376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus-response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities.
    Boyer TW; Longo MR; Bertenthal BI
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2012 Mar; 139(3):440-8. PubMed ID: 22326448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Manipulating response set in a choice reaction task: evidence for anatomical coding in response selection.
    Adam JJ
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Feb; 127(2):491-4. PubMed ID: 17923098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Selection and maintenance of stimulus-response rules during preparation and performance of a spatial choice-reaction task.
    Schumacher EH; Cole MW; D'Esposito M
    Brain Res; 2007 Mar; 1136(1):77-87. PubMed ID: 17223091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Estimating the executive demands of a one-back choice reaction time task by means of the selective interference paradigm.
    Szmalec A; Vandierendonck A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Aug; 60(8):1116-39. PubMed ID: 17654395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations.
    Naefgen C; Dambacher M; Janczyk M
    Psychol Res; 2018 Nov; 82(6):1039-1052. PubMed ID: 28776264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Smaller backward crosstalk effects for free choice tasks are not the result of immediate conflict adaptation.
    Naefgen C; Janczyk M
    Cogn Process; 2019 Feb; 20(1):73-85. PubMed ID: 30306368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.