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.
3. Independent recollection-familiarity ratings: Similar effects of levels-of-processing whether amount or confidence is rated. Williams HL; Bodner GE Can J Exp Psychol; 2019 Jun; 73(2):94-99. PubMed ID: 30802078 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparing recollection and nonrecollection memory states for recall of general knowledge: A nontrivial pursuit. Pereverseff RS; Bodner GE J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2020 Nov; 46(11):2207-2225. PubMed ID: 32658545 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Independent recollection/familiarity ratings can dissociate: Evidence from the effects of test context on recognition of event details. Willems S; Schroyen S; Dehon H; Bodner GE Can J Exp Psychol; 2019 Jun; 73(2):100-104. PubMed ID: 30802076 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Verbatim editing: A general model of recollection rejection. Brainerd CJ; Nakamura K; Chang M; Bialer DM J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 Oct; 45(10):1776-1790. PubMed ID: 30714755 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Invalid retro-cues can eliminate the retro-cue benefit: Evidence for a hybridized account. Gözenman F; Tanoue RT; Metoyer T; Berryhill ME J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2014 Oct; 40(5):1748-54. PubMed ID: 25045904 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The inferior parietal lobule and recognition memory: expectancy violation or successful retrieval? O'Connor AR; Han S; Dobbins IG J Neurosci; 2010 Feb; 30(8):2924-34. PubMed ID: 20181590 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Recognition memory: Tulving's contributions and some new findings. Roediger HL; Tekin E Neuropsychologia; 2020 Mar; 139():107350. PubMed ID: 31978402 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Monitoring the source monitoring. Luna K; Martín-Luengo B Cogn Process; 2013 Nov; 14(4):347-56. PubMed ID: 23553316 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Are age differences in recognition-based retrieval monitoring an epiphenomenon of age differences in memory? Hertzog C; Curley T; Dunlosky J Psychol Aging; 2021 Mar; 36(2):186-199. PubMed ID: 33793261 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Aging and memory as discrimination: Influences of encoding specificity, cue overload, and prior knowledge. Badham SP; Poirier M; Gandhi N; Hadjivassiliou A; Maylor EA Psychol Aging; 2016 Nov; 31(7):758-770. PubMed ID: 27831714 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The role of children's metacognitive experiences for cue utilization and monitoring accuracy: A longitudinal study. Roebers CM; Mayer B; Steiner M; Bayard NS; van Loon MH Dev Psychol; 2019 Oct; 55(10):2077-2089. PubMed ID: 31343230 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Intelligence as the efficiency of cue-driven retrieval from secondary memory. Liesefeld HR; Hoffmann E; Wentura D Memory; 2016; 24(3):285-94. PubMed ID: 25626154 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Recollection versus strength as the primary determinant of hippocampal engagement at retrieval. Cohn M; Moscovitch M; Lahat A; McAndrews MP Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2009 Dec; 106(52):22451-5. PubMed ID: 20007783 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]