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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32409922)

  • 21. Selective access in cued recall: the roles of retrieval cues and domains of encoding.
    McEvoy CL; Nelson DL
    Mem Cognit; 1990 Jan; 18(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 2314223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A limit on retrieval-induced forgetting.
    Butler KM; Williams CC; Zacks RT; Maki RH
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2001 Sep; 27(5):1314-9. PubMed ID: 11550757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Pretesting versus posttesting: Comparing the pedagogical benefits of errorful generation and retrieval practice.
    Pan SC; Sana F
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2021 Jun; 27(2):237-257. PubMed ID: 33793291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Interpreting the influence of implicitly activated memories on recall and recognition.
    Nelson DL; McKinney VM; Gee NR; Janczura GA
    Psychol Rev; 1998 Apr; 105(2):299-324. PubMed ID: 9577240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning: dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration.
    Lehman M; Smith MA; Karpicke JD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2014 Nov; 40(6):1787-94. PubMed ID: 24797442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A model for stochastic drift in memory strength to account for judgments of learning.
    Sikström S; Jönsson F
    Psychol Rev; 2005 Oct; 112(4):932-50. PubMed ID: 16262474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The effect of relations in paired-associate learning.
    Wilton RN
    Memory; 2006 Feb; 14(2):214-31. PubMed ID: 16484111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Test-enhanced learning for pairs and triplets: When and why does transfer occur?
    Rickard TC; Pan SC
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Oct; 48(7):1146-1160. PubMed ID: 32495320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. An ARC-REM model for accuracy and response time in recognition and recall.
    Diller DE; Nobel PA; Shiffrin RM
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2001 Mar; 27(2):414-35. PubMed ID: 11294441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Temporal clustering and sequencing in short-term memory and episodic memory.
    Farrell S
    Psychol Rev; 2012 Apr; 119(2):223-71. PubMed ID: 22506678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Variation in working memory capacity and episodic recall: the contributions of strategic encoding and contextual retrieval.
    Unsworth N; Spillers GJ
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2010 Apr; 17(2):200-5. PubMed ID: 20382920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Age differences in predictions and performance on a cued recall task.
    Shaw RJ; Craik FI
    Psychol Aging; 1989 Jun; 4(2):131-5. PubMed ID: 2789740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding?
    Grimaldi PJ; Karpicke JD
    Mem Cognit; 2012 May; 40(4):505-13. PubMed ID: 22238214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect.
    Carpenter SK; DeLosh EL
    Mem Cognit; 2006 Mar; 34(2):268-76. PubMed ID: 16752591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The context counts: congruent learning and testing environments prevent memory retrieval impairment following stress.
    Schwabe L; Wolf OT
    Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2009 Sep; 9(3):229-36. PubMed ID: 19679758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Multiple-choice tests exonerated, at least of some charges: fostering test-induced learning and avoiding test-induced forgetting.
    Little JL; Bjork EL; Bjork RA; Angello G
    Psychol Sci; 2012; 23(11):1337-44. PubMed ID: 23034566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Reversing the testing effect by feedback: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.
    Pastötter B; Bäuml KH
    Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2016 Jun; 16(3):473-88. PubMed ID: 26857480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Correcting a metacognitive error: feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses.
    Butler AC; Karpicke JD; Roediger HL
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Jul; 34(4):918-28. PubMed ID: 18605878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Individual differences in self-initiated processing at encoding and retrieval: a latent variable analysis.
    Unsworth N
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Feb; 62(2):257-66. PubMed ID: 18780192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effects of testing on subsequent re-encoding and long-term forgetting of action-relevant materials: On the influence of recall type.
    Kubik V; Nilsson LG; Olofsson JK; Jönsson FU
    Scand J Psychol; 2015 Oct; 56(5):475-81. PubMed ID: 26243692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.