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: 32723219)

  • 1. Sans Forgetica is not desirable for learning.
    Geller J; Davis SD; Peterson DJ
    Memory; 2020 Sep; 28(8):957-967. PubMed ID: 32723219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Is this going to be on the test? Test expectancy moderates the disfluency effect with sans forgetica.
    Geller J; Peterson D
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2021 Dec; 47(12):1924-1938. PubMed ID: 34672664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Disfluent difficulties are not desirable difficulties: the (lack of) effect of Sans Forgetica on memory.
    Taylor A; Sanson M; Burnell R; Wade KA; Garry M
    Memory; 2020 Aug; 28(7):850-857. PubMed ID: 32364830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Distinctive Sans Forgetica font does not benefit memory accuracy in the DRM paradigm.
    Huff MJ; Maxwell NP; Mitchell A
    Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2022 Dec; 7(1):102. PubMed ID: 36484976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Recognition of Studied Words in Perceptual Disfluent Sans Forgetica Font.
    Cui L; Liu J
    Vision (Basel); 2022 Aug; 6(3):. PubMed ID: 36136745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Individual differences in the desirable difficulty effect during lexical acquisition.
    Eskenazi MA; Nix B
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2021 Jan; 47(1):45-52. PubMed ID: 31916830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Lexical and semantic search in cued recall, fragment completion, perceptual identification, and recognition.
    Nelson DL; McEvoy CL; Bajo MT
    Am J Psychol; 1988; 101(4):465-80. PubMed ID: 3232723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. When disfluency is--and is not--a desirable difficulty: the influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory.
    Yue CL; Castel AD; Bjork RA
    Mem Cognit; 2013 Feb; 41(2):229-41. PubMed ID: 22976883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In a Concurrent Memory and Auditory Perception Task, the Pupil Dilation Response Is More Sensitive to Memory Load Than to Auditory Stimulus Characteristics.
    Zekveld AA; Kramer SE; Rönnberg J; Rudner M
    Ear Hear; 2019; 40(2):272-286. PubMed ID: 29923867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Production does not improve memory for face-name associations.
    Hourihan KL; Smith AR
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2016 Jun; 70(2):147-53. PubMed ID: 27244356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Task difficulty differentially affects two measures of processing load: the pupil response during sentence processing and delayed cued recall of the sentences.
    Zekveld AA; Festen JM; Kramer SE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2013 Aug; 56(4):1156-65. PubMed ID: 23785182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Selecting effectively contributes to the mnemonic benefits of self-generated cues.
    Tullis JG; Fraundorf SH
    Mem Cognit; 2022 May; 50(4):765-781. PubMed ID: 34731430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Retrieval practice via corrective feedback: is learning better for targets in an expected or surprising sense?
    Burt JS; Leggett JMI; Chalmers KA; Boulton PA
    Memory; 2021 Nov; 29(10):1396-1410. PubMed ID: 34634998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. You won't guess that: On the limited benefits of guessing when learning a foreign language.
    Butowska E; Hanczakowski M; Zawadzka K
    Mem Cognit; 2022 Jul; 50(5):1033-1047. PubMed ID: 34913140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Determinants of positive and negative generation effects in free recall.
    Steffens MC; Erdfelder E
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 1998 Nov; 51(4):705-33. PubMed ID: 9854440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Endogenous versus exogenous attentional cuing effects on memory.
    Hauer BJ; MacLeod CM
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2006 Jul; 122(3):305-20. PubMed ID: 16458848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Adaptive memory: Animacy enhances free recall but impairs cued recall.
    Popp EY; Serra MJ
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2016 Feb; 42(2):186-201. PubMed ID: 26375781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The negative generation effect: delineation of a phenomenon.
    Schmidt SR; Cherry K
    Mem Cognit; 1989 May; 17(3):359-69. PubMed ID: 2725272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Examining competing hypotheses for the effects of diagrams on recall for text.
    Ortegren FR; Serra MJ; England BD
    Mem Cognit; 2015 Jan; 43(1):70-84. PubMed ID: 24874510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Generation and associative encoding in young and old adults: the effect of the strength of association between cues and targets on a cued recall task.
    Taconnat L; Froger C; Sacher M; Isingrini M
    Exp Psychol; 2008; 55(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 18271350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.