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.
226 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34591554)
1. Strategy and processing speed eclipse individual differences in control ability in conflict tasks. Hedge C; Powell G; Bompas A; Sumner P J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2022 Oct; 48(10):1448-1469. PubMed ID: 34591554 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Slow and steady? Strategic adjustments in response caution are moderately reliable and correlate across tasks. Hedge C; Vivian-Griffiths S; Powell G; Bompas A; Sumner P Conscious Cogn; 2019 Oct; 75():102797. PubMed ID: 31421398 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A revised diffusion model for conflict tasks. Lee PS; Sewell DK Psychon Bull Rev; 2024 Feb; 31(1):1-31. PubMed ID: 37507646 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Are cognitive control processes reliable? Whitehead PS; Brewer GA; Blais C J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 May; 45(5):765-778. PubMed ID: 30047768 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cognitive control across the lifespan: Congruency effects reveal divergent developmental trajectories. Erb CD; Germine L; Hartshorne JK J Exp Psychol Gen; 2023 Nov; 152(11):3285-3291. PubMed ID: 37289513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Testing the validity of conflict drift-diffusion models for use in estimating cognitive processes: A parameter-recovery study. White CN; Servant M; Logan GD Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Feb; 25(1):286-301. PubMed ID: 28357629 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Individual differences in conflict-monitoring: testing means and covariance hypothesis about the Simon and the Eriksen Flanker task. Keye D; Wilhelm O; Oberauer K; van Ravenzwaaij D Psychol Res; 2009 Nov; 73(6):762-76. PubMed ID: 19034502 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Modality matters: Three auditory conflict tasks to measure individual differences in attention control. Burgoyne AP; Seeburger DT; Engle RW Behav Res Methods; 2024 Sep; 56(6):5959-5985. PubMed ID: 38366119 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Low and variable correlation between reaction time costs and accuracy costs explained by accumulation models: Meta-analysis and simulations. Hedge C; Powell G; Bompas A; Vivian-Griffiths S; Sumner P Psychol Bull; 2018 Nov; 144(11):1200-1227. PubMed ID: 30265012 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Interacting congruency effects in the hybrid Stroop-Simon task prevent conclusions regarding the domain specificity or generality of the congruency sequence effect. Weissman DH J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2020 May; 46(5):945-967. PubMed ID: 31580121 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Generality and specificity in cognitive control: conflict adaptation within and across selective-attention tasks but not across selective-attention and Simon tasks. Freitas AL; Clark SL Psychol Res; 2015 Jan; 79(1):143-62. PubMed ID: 24487727 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Conflict processing in kindergarten children: New evidence from distribution analyses reveals the dynamics of incorrect response activation and suppression. Ambrosi S; Servant M; Blaye A; Burle B J Exp Child Psychol; 2019 Jan; 177():36-52. PubMed ID: 30165290 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Linking computational models of two core tasks of cognitive control. Robinson MM; Steyvers M Psychol Rev; 2023 Jan; 130(1):71-101. PubMed ID: 36227284 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging in the Flanker Task. Servant M; Evans NJ Psychol Aging; 2020 Sep; 35(6):831-849. PubMed ID: 32658539 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The influence of reward in the Simon task: Differences and similarities to the Stroop and Eriksen flanker tasks. Mittelstädt V; Ulrich R; König J; Hofbauer K; Mackenzie IG Atten Percept Psychophys; 2023 Apr; 85(3):949-959. PubMed ID: 36316615 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dissociation between reaction time and pupil dilation in the Stroop task. Hershman R; Henik A J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2019 Oct; 45(10):1899-1909. PubMed ID: 30816765 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Control over task conflict in the stroop and affordances tasks: an individual differences study. Littman R; Kalanthroff E Psychol Res; 2021 Sep; 85(6):2420-2427. PubMed ID: 32894341 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The role of temporal order of relevant and irrelevant dimensions within conflict tasks. Mackenzie IG; Mittelstädt V; Ulrich R; Leuthold H J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2022 Oct; 48(10):1099-1115. PubMed ID: 35980705 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cognitive processing speed deficits in multiple sclerosis: Dissociating sensorial and motor processing changes from cognitive processing speed. Clough M; Dobbing J; Stankovich J; Ternes A; Kolbe S; White OB; Fielding J Mult Scler Relat Disord; 2020 Feb; 38():101522. PubMed ID: 31785491 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of conflict in cognitive control: Evidence from mouse tracking. Ye W; Damian MF Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2023 Jan; 76(1):54-69. PubMed ID: 35045771 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]