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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39002429)

  • 1. Absolute-judgment models better predict eyewitness decision-making than do relative-judgment models.
    Smith AM; Ying RC; Goldstein AR; Fitzgerald RJ
    Cognition; 2024 Oct; 251():105877. PubMed ID: 39002429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Measuring lineup fairness from eyewitness identification data using a multinomial processing tree model.
    Menne NM; Winter K; Bell R; Buchner A
    Sci Rep; 2023 Apr; 13(1):6290. PubMed ID: 37072473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification.
    Clark SE; Erickson MA; Breneman J
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Oct; 35(5):364-80. PubMed ID: 20953683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator influence on mistaken identifications.
    Zimmerman DM; Chorn JA; Rhead LM; Evelo AJ; Kovera MB
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2017 Dec; 23(4):460-473. PubMed ID: 29265857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparing witness performance in the field versus the lab: How real-world conditions affect eyewitness decision-making.
    Eisen ML; Ying RC; Chui C; Swaby MA
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Jun; 46(3):175-188. PubMed ID: 35604705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Phenotypic mismatch between suspects and fillers but not phenotypic bias increases eyewitness identifications of Black suspects.
    Jones JM; Katzman J; Kovera MB
    Front Psychol; 2024; 15():1233782. PubMed ID: 38680285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Revisiting absolute and relative judgments in the WITNESS model.
    Fife D; Perry C; Gronlund SD
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2014 Apr; 21(2):479-87. PubMed ID: 23943556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Estimating the proportion of guilty suspects and posterior probability of guilt in lineups using signal-detection models.
    Cohen AL; Starns JJ; Rotello CM; Cataldo AM
    Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2020 May; 5(1):21. PubMed ID: 32405927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Distinguishing Between Investigator Discriminability and Eyewitness Discriminability: A Method for Creating Full Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves of Lineup Identification Performance.
    Smith AM; Yang Y; Wells GL
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2020 May; 15(3):589-607. PubMed ID: 32375014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. New signal detection theory-based framework for eyewitness performance in lineups.
    Lee J; Penrod SD
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Oct; 43(5):436-454. PubMed ID: 31368723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Identifying the bad guy in a lineup using confidence judgments under deadline pressure.
    Brewer N; Weber N; Wootton D; Lindsay DS
    Psychol Sci; 2012 Oct; 23(10):1208-14. PubMed ID: 22933457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Modeling face similarity in police lineups.
    Shen KJ; Colloff MF; Vul E; Wilson BM; Wixted JT
    Psychol Rev; 2023 Mar; 130(2):432-461. PubMed ID: 36548056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The information gained from witnesses' responses to an initial "blank" lineup.
    Palmer MA; Brewer N; Weber N
    Law Hum Behav; 2012 Oct; 36(5):439-47. PubMed ID: 22468758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Why are lineups better than showups? A test of the filler siphoning and enhanced discriminability accounts.
    Colloff MF; Wixted JT
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2020 Mar; 26(1):124-143. PubMed ID: 30883151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A perceptual scaling approach to eyewitness identification.
    Gepshtein S; Wang Y; He F; Diep D; Albright TD
    Nat Commun; 2020 Jul; 11(1):3380. PubMed ID: 32665586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The single lineup paradigm: A new way to manipulate target presence in eyewitness identification experiments.
    Oriet C; Fitzgerald RJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Feb; 42(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 29461076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A signal-detection analysis of eyewitness identification across the adult lifespan.
    Colloff MF; Wade KA; Wixted JT; Maylor EA
    Psychol Aging; 2017 May; 32(3):243-258. PubMed ID: 28504536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Police lineups of the future?
    Brewer N; Weber N; Guerin N
    Am Psychol; 2020 Jan; 75(1):76-91. PubMed ID: 30998024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Mistaken eyewitness identification rates increase when either witnessing or testing conditions get worse.
    Smith AM; Wilford MM; Quigley-McBride A; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Aug; 43(4):358-368. PubMed ID: 31144829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions.
    Clark SE; Marshall TE; Rosenthal R
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Mar; 15(1):63-75. PubMed ID: 19309217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.