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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32191073)

  • 1. The Bayesian sampler: Generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments.
    Zhu JQ; Sanborn AN; Chater N
    Psychol Rev; 2020 Oct; 127(5):719-748. PubMed ID: 32191073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Heuristics can produce surprisingly rational probability estimates: Comment on Costello and Watts (2014).
    Nilsson H; Juslin P; Winman A
    Psychol Rev; 2016 Jan; 123(1):103-11. PubMed ID: 26709414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The autocorrelated Bayesian sampler: A rational process for probability judgments, estimates, confidence intervals, choices, confidence judgments, and response times.
    Zhu JQ; Sundh J; Spicer J; Chater N; Sanborn AN
    Psychol Rev; 2024 Mar; 131(2):456-493. PubMed ID: 37289507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. Bayesian Brains without Probabilities.
    Sanborn AN; Chater N
    Trends Cogn Sci; 2016 Dec; 20(12):883-893. PubMed ID: 28327290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clarifying the relationship between coherence and accuracy in probability judgments.
    Zhu JQ; Newall PWS; Sundh J; Chater N; Sanborn AN
    Cognition; 2022 Jun; 223():105022. PubMed ID: 35074619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A unified explanation of variability and bias in human probability judgments: How computational noise explains the mean-variance signature.
    Sundh J; Zhu JQ; Chater N; Sanborn A
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2023 Oct; 152(10):2842-2860. PubMed ID: 37199970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A theory of learning to infer.
    Dasgupta I; Schulz E; Tenenbaum JB; Gershman SJ
    Psychol Rev; 2020 Apr; 127(3):412-441. PubMed ID: 32223286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Probability theory plus noise: Replies to Crupi and Tentori (2016) and to Nilsson, Juslin, and Winman (2016).
    Costello F; Watts P
    Psychol Rev; 2016 Jan; 123(1):112-23. PubMed ID: 26709415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The similarity-updating model of probability judgment and belief revision.
    Albrecht R; Jenny MA; Nilsson H; Rieskamp J
    Psychol Rev; 2021 Nov; 128(6):1088-1111. PubMed ID: 34292023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Noisy probability judgment, the conjunction fallacy, and rationality: Comment on Costello and Watts (2014).
    Crupi V; Tentori K
    Psychol Rev; 2016 Jan; 123(1):97-102. PubMed ID: 26709413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Bayesian Mutation Sampler Explains Distributions of Causal Judgments.
    Kolvoort IR; Temme N; van Maanen L
    Open Mind (Camb); 2023; 7():318-349. PubMed ID: 37416078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A quantitative causal model theory of conditional reasoning.
    Fernbach PM; Erb CD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Sep; 39(5):1327-43. PubMed ID: 23565785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A quantum probability framework for human probabilistic inference.
    Trueblood JS; Yearsley JM; Pothos EM
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2017 Sep; 146(9):1307-1341. PubMed ID: 28682091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Invariants in probabilistic reasoning.
    Costello F; Watts P
    Cogn Psychol; 2018 Feb; 100():1-16. PubMed ID: 29220640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A computational model of infant learning and reasoning with probabilities.
    Shultz TR; Nobandegani AS
    Psychol Rev; 2022 Nov; 129(6):1281-1295. PubMed ID: 34472947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Asking better questions: How presentation formats influence information search.
    Wu CM; Meder B; Filimon F; Nelson JD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 Aug; 43(8):1274-1297. PubMed ID: 28318286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.