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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37498704)

  • 1. Preparing a task is sufficient to generate a subsequent task-switch cost affecting task performance.
    Swainson R; Prosser LJ; Yamaguchi M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2024 Jan; 50(1):39-51. PubMed ID: 37498704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effect of performing versus preparing a task on the subsequent switch cost.
    Swainson R; Prosser L; Karavasilev K; Romanczuk A
    Psychol Res; 2021 Feb; 85(1):364-383. PubMed ID: 31624918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Task-switch costs subsequent to cue-only trials.
    Swainson R; Martin D; Prosser L
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2017 Aug; 70(8):1453-1470. PubMed ID: 27174655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect.
    Prosser LJ; Yamaguchi M; Swainson R
    Psychol Res; 2023 Sep; 87(6):1816-1835. PubMed ID: 36571593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation.
    Lenartowicz A; Yeung N; Cohen JD
    Psychol Res; 2011 Jan; 75(1):66-76. PubMed ID: 20473686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cue-switch costs in task-switching: cue priming or control processes?
    Grange JA; Houghton G
    Psychol Res; 2010 Sep; 74(5):481-90. PubMed ID: 20037766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Exploring individual differences in task switching.
    Li B; Li X; Stoet G; Lages M
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2019 Feb; 193():80-95. PubMed ID: 30599293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Distinct neurophysiological mechanisms mediate mixing costs and switch costs.
    Wylie GR; Murray MM; Javitt DC; Foxe JJ
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2009 Jan; 21(1):105-18. PubMed ID: 18476759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Cue-switch effects do not rely on the same neural systems as task-switch effects.
    De Baene W; Brass M
    Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2011 Dec; 11(4):600-7. PubMed ID: 21874602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The surface structure and the deep structure of sequential control: what can we learn from task span switch costs?
    Mayr U
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2010 Oct; 17(5):693-8. PubMed ID: 21037168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Investigating a method for reducing residual switch costs in cued task switching.
    Schneider DW
    Mem Cognit; 2016 Jul; 44(5):762-77. PubMed ID: 26833200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The impact of cue format and cue transparency on task switching performance.
    Gade M; Steinhauser M
    Psychol Res; 2020 Jul; 84(5):1346-1369. PubMed ID: 30725390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. You can't always get what you want: the influence of unexpected task constraint on voluntary task switching.
    Weaver SM; Foxe JJ; Shpaner M; Wylie GR
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2014; 67(11):2247-59. PubMed ID: 24916773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost.
    Arbuthnott KD; Woodward TS
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2002 Mar; 56(1):18-29. PubMed ID: 11901958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Preparing to switch languages versus preparing to switch tasks: Which is more effective?
    Graham B; Lavric A
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2021 Oct; 150(10):1956-1973. PubMed ID: 33523686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Task-switching performance with 1:1 and 2:1 cue-task mappings: not so different after all.
    Schneider DW; Logan GD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2011 Mar; 37(2):405-15. PubMed ID: 21299334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Examining binding effects on task switch costs and response-repetition effects: Variations of the cue modality and stimulus modality in task switching.
    Kandalowski SRM; Seibold JC; Schuch S; Koch I
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 May; 82(4):1632-1643. PubMed ID: 31820281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. More evidence that a switch is not (always) a switch: Binning bilinguals reveals dissociations between task and language switching.
    Segal D; Stasenko A; Gollan TH
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2019 Mar; 148(3):501-519. PubMed ID: 30394767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evidence for a multicomponent hierarchical representation of dual tasks.
    Hirsch P; Roesch C; Koch I
    Mem Cognit; 2021 Feb; 49(2):350-363. PubMed ID: 32989661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Differential effects of articulatory suppression on cue-switch and task-switch trials in random task cueing with 2:1 mapping.
    Saeki E; Saito S
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2012; 65(8):1599-614. PubMed ID: 22506894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.