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: 32297789)

  • 1. It is harder than you think: On the boundary conditions of exploiting congruency cues.
    Jiménez L; Méndez C; Abrahamse E; Braem S
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2021 Oct; 47(10):1686-1704. PubMed ID: 32297789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The next trial will be conflicting! Effects of explicit congruency pre-cues on cognitive control.
    Bugg JM; Smallwood A
    Psychol Res; 2016 Jan; 80(1):16-33. PubMed ID: 25522873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Finding an interaction between Stroop congruency and flanker congruency requires a large congruency effect: A within-trial combination of conflict tasks.
    Rey-Mermet A
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Jul; 82(5):2271-2301. PubMed ID: 31974936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cognitive control in cued task switching with transition cues: cue processing, task processing, and cue-task transition congruency.
    Van Loy B; Liefooghe B; Vandierendonck A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2010 Oct; 63(10):1916-35. PubMed ID: 20574933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effects of awareness and secondary task demands on Stroop performance in the pre-cued lists paradigm.
    Bugg JM; Diede NT
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Sep; 189():26-35. PubMed ID: 28061943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Common and specific loci of Stroop effects in vocal and manual tasks, revealed by event-related brain potentials and posthypnotic suggestions.
    Zahedi A; Abdel Rahman R; Stürmer B; Sommer W
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2019 Sep; 148(9):1575-1594. PubMed ID: 30730196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Stop interfering: Stroop task conflict independence from informational conflict and interference.
    Kalanthroff E; Goldfarb L; Usher M; Henik A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013; 66(7):1356-67. PubMed ID: 23163896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Does response modality influence conflict? Modelling vocal and manual response Stroop interference.
    Fennell A; Ratcliff R
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 Nov; 45(11):2098-2119. PubMed ID: 30802093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Cognitive control during a spatial Stroop task: Comparing conflict monitoring and prediction of response-outcome theories.
    Pires L; Leitão J; Guerrini C; Simões MR
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Sep; 189():63-75. PubMed ID: 28683927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Focusing on task conflict in the Stroop effect.
    Entel O; Tzelgov J
    Psychol Res; 2018 Mar; 82(2):284-295. PubMed ID: 27915364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. When global and local information about attentional demands collide: evidence for global dominance.
    Suh J; Ileri-Tayar M; Bugg JM
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2022 Aug; 84(6):1858-1873. PubMed ID: 35701660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict.
    Lamers MJ; Roelofs A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Jun; 64(6):1056-81. PubMed ID: 21113864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Context-specific proportion congruent effects: Compound-cue contingency learning in disguise.
    Schmidt JR; Lemercier C
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 May; 72(5):1119-1130. PubMed ID: 29926760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Congruency precues moderate item-specific proportion congruency effects.
    Hutchison KA; Bugg JM; Lim YB; Olsen MR
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 May; 78(4):1087-103. PubMed ID: 26860710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evidence for interaction between the stop signal and the Stroop task conflict.
    Kalanthroff E; Goldfarb L; Henik A
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Apr; 39(2):579-92. PubMed ID: 22390293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. When stimulus-driven control settings compete: On the dominance of categories as cues for control.
    Bugg JM; Dey A
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2018 Dec; 44(12):1905-1932. PubMed ID: 30211592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Flexibility by association? No evidence for an influence of cue-transition associations on voluntary task switching.
    Mendl J; Fröber K; Dreisbach G
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2024 Mar; 50(3):313-328. PubMed ID: 38421777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Self-related primes reduce congruency effects in the Stroop task.
    Dignath D; Eder AB; Herbert C; Kiesel A
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2022 Nov; 151(11):2879-2892. PubMed ID: 35604709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Pupillary correlates of preparatory control in the Stroop task.
    Unsworth N; Miller AL
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2023 Oct; 85(7):2277-2295. PubMed ID: 37407798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Spatial Stroop and spatial orienting: the role of onset versus offset cues.
    Luo C; Lupiáñez J; Fu X; Weng X
    Psychol Res; 2010 May; 74(3):277-90. PubMed ID: 19693533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.