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 *

195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37674259)

  • 1. The neutral condition in conflict tasks: On the violation of the midpoint assumption in reaction time trends.
    Smith P; Ulrich R
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2024 May; 77(5):1023-1043. PubMed ID: 37674259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The role of task-relevant and task-irrelevant information in congruency sequence effects: Applying the diffusion model for conflict tasks.
    Koob V; Mackenzie I; Ulrich R; Leuthold H; Janczyk M
    Cogn Psychol; 2023 Feb; 140():101528. PubMed ID: 36584549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A diffusion model for the congruency sequence effect.
    Luo C; Proctor RW
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2022 Dec; 29(6):2034-2051. PubMed ID: 35676612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict.
    Lamers MJ; Roelofs A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Jun; 64(6):1056-81. PubMed ID: 21113864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The contribution of meaning to the detection of task conflict.
    Hershman R; Levin Y; Tzelgov J; Henik A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2021 Sep; 74(9):1553-1561. PubMed ID: 33629642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Neutral affordances: Task conflict in the affordances task.
    Littman R; Kalanthroff E
    Conscious Cogn; 2022 Jan; 97():103262. PubMed ID: 34923242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Examining a supramodal network for conflict processing: a systematic review and novel functional magnetic resonance imaging data for related visual and auditory stroop tasks.
    Roberts KL; Hall DA
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2008 Jun; 20(6):1063-78. PubMed ID: 18211237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Finding an interaction between Stroop congruency and flanker congruency requires a large congruency effect: A within-trial combination of conflict tasks.
    Rey-Mermet A
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2020 Jul; 82(5):2271-2301. PubMed ID: 31974936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Stop interfering: Stroop task conflict independence from informational conflict and interference.
    Kalanthroff E; Goldfarb L; Usher M; Henik A
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013; 66(7):1356-67. PubMed ID: 23163896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The selective use of punishments on congruent versus incongruent trials in the Stroop task.
    Yang Q; Xing J; Braem S; Pourtois G
    Neurobiol Learn Mem; 2022 Sep; 193():107654. PubMed ID: 35777632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Neutral stimuli and pupillometric task conflict.
    Hershman R; Levin Y; Tzelgov J; Henik A
    Psychol Res; 2021 Apr; 85(3):1084-1092. PubMed ID: 32170401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Sequential conflict resolution under multiple concurrent conflicts: An ERP study.
    Rey-Mermet A; Gade M; Steinhauser M
    Neuroimage; 2019 Mar; 188():411-418. PubMed ID: 30562575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The congruency sequence effect 3.0: a critical test of conflict adaptation.
    Duthoo W; Abrahamse EL; Braem S; Boehler CN; Notebaert W
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(10):e110462. PubMed ID: 25340396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Congruency sequence effect in cross-task context: evidence for dimension-specific modulation.
    Lee J; Cho YS
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2013 Nov; 144(3):617-27. PubMed ID: 24184348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Auditory conflict processing: behavioral and electrophysiologic manifestations of the stroop effect.
    Henkin Y; Yaar-Soffer Y; Gilat S; Muchnik C
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2010; 21(7):474-86. PubMed ID: 20807483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.