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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35484431)

  • 1. Reasoning strategies and prior knowledge effects in contingency learning.
    Béghin G; Markovits H
    Mem Cognit; 2022 Aug; 50(6):1269-1283. PubMed ID: 35484431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Causal judgment from contingency information: relation between subjective reports and individual tendencies in judgment.
    White PA
    Mem Cognit; 2000 Apr; 28(3):415-26. PubMed ID: 10881559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Interpretation of ambiguous trials along with reasoning strategy is related to causal judgements in zero-contingency learning.
    Béghin G; Markovits H
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2023 Dec; 76(12):2704-2717. PubMed ID: 36718805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contrasting cue-density effects in causal and prediction judgments.
    Vadillo MA; Musca SC; Blanco F; Matute H
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2011 Feb; 18(1):110-5. PubMed ID: 21327350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. More evidence for a dual-process model of conditional reasoning.
    Markovits H; Forgues HL; Brunet ML
    Mem Cognit; 2012 Jul; 40(5):736-47. PubMed ID: 22287219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accounting for occurrences: a new view of the use of contingency information in causal judgment.
    White PA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Jan; 34(1):204-18. PubMed ID: 18194063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Temporal contiguity and contingency judgments: a Pavlovian analogue.
    Allan LG; Tangen JM; Wood R; Shah T
    Integr Physiol Behav Sci; 2003; 38(3):214-29. PubMed ID: 15070084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reasoning strategies predict use of very fast logical reasoning.
    Markovits H; de Chantal PL; Brisson J; Dubé É; Thompson V; Newman I
    Mem Cognit; 2021 Apr; 49(3):532-543. PubMed ID: 33057905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Who resists belief-biased inferences? The role of individual differences in reasoning strategies, working memory, and attentional focus.
    de Chantal PL; Newman IR; Thompson V; Markovits H
    Mem Cognit; 2020 May; 48(4):655-671. PubMed ID: 31792857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Two pathways to causal control: use and availability of information in the environment in people with and without signs of depression.
    Byrom NC; Msetfi RM; Murphy RA
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2015 May; 157():1-12. PubMed ID: 25703605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reasoning strategies explain individual differences in social reasoning.
    Gagnon-St-Pierre É; Doucerain MM; Markovits H
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2021 Feb; 150(2):340-353. PubMed ID: 32897098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The influence of the number of relevant causes on the processing of covariation information in causal reasoning.
    Kim K; Markman AB; Kim TH
    Cogn Process; 2016 Nov; 17(4):399-413. PubMed ID: 27312597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Statistical contingency has a different impact on preparation judgements than on causal judgements.
    De Houwer J; Vandorpe S; Beckers T
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):418-32. PubMed ID: 17366309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reasoning strategy vs cognitive capacity as predictors of individual differences in reasoning performance.
    Thompson VA; Markovits H
    Cognition; 2021 Dec; 217():104866. PubMed ID: 34450394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Singular clues to causality and their use in human causal judgment.
    White PA
    Cogn Sci; 2014; 38(1):38-75. PubMed ID: 23957568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Does evaluative learning rely on the perception of contingency?: manipulating contingency and US density during evaluative conditioning.
    Kattner F; Ellermeier W
    Exp Psychol; 2011; 58(5):391-9. PubMed ID: 21592939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Strategy changes in human contingency judgments as a function of contingency tables.
    Shimazaki T; Tsuda Y; Imada H
    J Gen Psychol; 1991 Oct; 118(4):349-60. PubMed ID: 1813597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The role of learning data in causal reasoning about observations and interventions.
    Meder B; Hagmayer Y; Waldmann MR
    Mem Cognit; 2009 Apr; 37(3):249-64. PubMed ID: 19246341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Predictions and causal estimations are not supported by the same associative structure.
    Vadillo MA; Matute H
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 Mar; 60(3):433-47. PubMed ID: 17366310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cue interaction and judgments of causality: contributions of causal and associative processes.
    Tangen JM; Allan LG
    Mem Cognit; 2004 Jan; 32(1):107-24. PubMed ID: 15078048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.