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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32530365)

  • 1. How do partner reactions affect task set selection: Specific imitation or abstract tasks?
    Müller R
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2020 Nov; 73(11):2008-2025. PubMed ID: 32530365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mental representations of partner task cause interference in picture naming.
    Brehm L; Taschenberger L; Meyer A
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2019 Aug; 199():102888. PubMed ID: 31349029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Does the anticipation of compatible partner reactions facilitate action planning in joint tasks?
    Müller R
    Psychol Res; 2016 Jul; 80(4):464-86. PubMed ID: 25957279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Flowers and spiders in spatial stimulus-response compatibility: does affective valence influence selection of task-sets or selection of responses?
    Yamaguchi M; Chen J; Mishler S; Proctor RW
    Cogn Emot; 2018 Aug; 32(5):1003-1017. PubMed ID: 28946804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Automatic imitation of speech is enhanced for non-native sounds.
    Wilt H; Wu Y; Evans BG; Adank P
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2024 Jun; 31(3):1114-1130. PubMed ID: 37848661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task.
    Saunders DR; Melcher D; van Zoest W
    Psychol Res; 2019 Jul; 83(5):852-862. PubMed ID: 28852867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Automatic imitation? Imitative compatibility affects responses at high perceptual load.
    Catmur C
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2016 Apr; 42(4):530-9. PubMed ID: 26569336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The development of co-representation effects in a joint task: do children represent a co-actor?
    Milward SJ; Kita S; Apperly IA
    Cognition; 2014 Sep; 132(3):269-79. PubMed ID: 24853630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The role of emotional context in facilitating imitative actions.
    Grecucci A; Koch I; Rumiati RI
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2011 Oct; 138(2):311-5. PubMed ID: 21920488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. How preschoolers and adults represent their joint action partner's behavior.
    Sacheli LM; Meyer M; Hartstra E; Bekkering H; Hunnius S
    Psychol Res; 2019 Jul; 83(5):863-877. PubMed ID: 29067520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli.
    Wilt H; Wu Y; Trotter A; Adank P
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2023 Jun; 30(3):1093-1102. PubMed ID: 36443535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Backward crosstalk and the role of dimensional overlap within and between tasks.
    Huestegge L; Pieczykolan A; Janczyk M
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Jul; 188():139-147. PubMed ID: 29933176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Understanding action beyond imitation: reversed compatibility effects of action observation in imitation and joint action.
    van Schie HT; van Waterschoot BM; Bekkering H
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Dec; 34(6):1493-500. PubMed ID: 19045988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Task switching and the measurement of "switch costs".
    Wylie G; Allport A
    Psychol Res; 2000; 63(3-4):212-33. PubMed ID: 11004877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality.
    Fintor E; Stephan DN; Koch I
    Psychol Res; 2018 Jan; 82(1):121-133. PubMed ID: 28578525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Is there semantic interference in delayed naming?
    Mädebach A; Oppermann F; Hantsch A; Curda C; Jescheniak JD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Mar; 37(2):522-38. PubMed ID: 21299323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Spatial S-R compatibility effects in an intentional imitation task.
    Heyes C; Ray E
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2004 Aug; 11(4):703-8. PubMed ID: 15581121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Response compatibility and the relationship between event-related potentials and the timing of a motor response.
    Goodin DS; Aminoff MJ; Chequer RS; Ortiz TA
    J Neurophysiol; 1996 Dec; 76(6):3705-13. PubMed ID: 8985868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Weak imitative performance is not due to a functional 'mirroring' deficit in adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
    Leighton J; Bird G; Charman T; Heyes C
    Neuropsychologia; 2008 Mar; 46(4):1041-9. PubMed ID: 18177677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.