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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38326632)

  • 1. Pupillary correlates of individual differences in n-back task performance.
    Robison MK; Garner LD
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2024 Apr; 86(3):799-807. PubMed ID: 38326632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Pupillometry tracks fluctuations in working memory performance.
    Robison MK; Unsworth N
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2019 Feb; 81(2):407-419. PubMed ID: 30411207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Individual differences in the allocation of attention to items in working memory: Evidence from pupillometry.
    Unsworth N; Robison MK
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2015 Jun; 22(3):757-65. PubMed ID: 25324180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The importance of arousal for variation in working memory capacity and attention control: A latent variable pupillometry study.
    Unsworth N; Robison MK
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 Dec; 43(12):1962-1987. PubMed ID: 28504528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Patience is a virtue: Individual differences in cue-evoked pupil responses under temporal certainty.
    Hood AVB; Hart KM; Marchak FM; Hutchison KA
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2022 May; 84(4):1286-1303. PubMed ID: 35396616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An Exploratory Investigation of Pupillometry As a Measure of Tinnitus Intrusiveness on a Test of Auditory Short-Term Memory.
    Barrett DJK; Souto D; Pilling M; Baguley DM
    Ear Hear; 2022 Sep-Oct 01; 43(5):1540-1548. PubMed ID: 35213470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An examination of individual differences in levels of processing.
    Unsworth N; Miller AL
    Memory; 2024 May; 32(5):615-626. PubMed ID: 38771127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Foggy windows: Pupillary responses during task preparation.
    Trani A; Verhaeghen P
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2018 Oct; 71(10):2235-2248. PubMed ID: 30226439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pupillary correlates of individual differences in long-term memory.
    Robison MK; Trost JM; Schor D; Gibson BS; Healey MK
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2022 Aug; 29(4):1355-1366. PubMed ID: 35355225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Quantification of baseline pupillary response and task-evoked pupillary response during constant and incremental task load.
    Mosaly PR; Mazur LM; Marks LB
    Ergonomics; 2017 Oct; 60(10):1369-1375. PubMed ID: 28140793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The resolution of proactive interference in a novel visual working memory task: A behavioral and pupillometric study.
    Donenfeld J; Blaser E; Kaldy Z
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2024 Oct; 86(7):2345-2362. PubMed ID: 38898344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Examining the role of attentional allocation in working memory precision with pupillometry in children and adults.
    Galeano-Keiner EM; Pakzad S; Brod G; Bunge SA
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2023 Jul; 231():105655. PubMed ID: 36863172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Pupillary correlates of lapses of sustained attention.
    Unsworth N; Robison MK
    Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2016 Aug; 16(4):601-15. PubMed ID: 27038165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Use of Task-Evoked Pupillary Response as an Objective Measure of Cognitive Load in Novices and Trained Physicians: A New Tool for the Assessment of Expertise.
    Szulewski A; Roth N; Howes D
    Acad Med; 2015 Jul; 90(7):981-7. PubMed ID: 25738386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Focused attention predicts visual working memory performance in 13-month-old infants: A pupillometric study.
    Cheng C; Kaldy Z; Blaser E
    Dev Cogn Neurosci; 2019 Apr; 36():100616. PubMed ID: 30769261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Fine-grained versus categorical: Pupil size differentiates between strategies for spatial working memory performance.
    Starc M; Anticevic A; Repovš G
    Psychophysiology; 2017 May; 54(5):724-735. PubMed ID: 28127779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The impact of luminance on tonic and phasic pupillary responses to sustained cognitive load.
    Peysakhovich V; Vachon F; Dehais F
    Int J Psychophysiol; 2017 Feb; 112():40-45. PubMed ID: 27979740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The contribution of attentional lapses to individual differences in visual working memory capacity.
    Adam KC; Mance I; Fukuda K; Vogel EK
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2015 Aug; 27(8):1601-16. PubMed ID: 25811710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Differential aspects of attention predict the depth of visual working memory encoding: Evidence from pupillometry.
    Koevoet D; Naber M; Strauch C; Somai RS; Van der Stigchel S
    J Vis; 2023 Jun; 23(6):9. PubMed ID: 37318440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Attentional guidance by working memory differs by paradigm: an individual-differences approach.
    Dowd EW; Kiyonaga A; Egner T; Mitroff SR
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2015 Apr; 77(3):704-12. PubMed ID: 25737257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.