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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8744967)

  • 41. Factors modulating the effect of divided attention during retrieval of words.
    Fernandes MA; Moscovitch M
    Mem Cognit; 2002 Jul; 30(5):731-44. PubMed ID: 12219890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Task choice and semantic interference in picture naming.
    Piai V; Roelofs A; Schriefers H
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2015 May; 157():13-22. PubMed ID: 25703606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Two retrievals from a single cue: A bottleneck persists across episodic and semantic memory.
    Orscheschek F; Strobach T; Schubert T; Rickard T
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 May; 72(5):1005-1028. PubMed ID: 29703125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Viewer perspective affects central bottleneck requirements in spatial translation tasks.
    Franz EA; Sebastian A; Hust C; Norris T
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2008 Apr; 34(2):398-412. PubMed ID: 18377178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck.
    Hazeltine E; Ruthruff E
    Psychol Res; 2006 Nov; 70(6):504-13. PubMed ID: 16151721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Part-list cuing in speeded recognition and free recall.
    Oswald KM; Serra M; Krishna A
    Mem Cognit; 2006 Apr; 34(3):518-26. PubMed ID: 16933761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The testing effect under divided attention.
    Buchin ZL; Mulligan NW
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 Dec; 43(12):1934-1947. PubMed ID: 28504527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck.
    Pashler H
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1984 Jun; 10(3):358-77. PubMed ID: 6242412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. An information-processing model of three cortical regions: evidence in episodic memory retrieval.
    Sohn MH; Goode A; Stenger VA; Jung KJ; Carter CS; Anderson JR
    Neuroimage; 2005 Mar; 25(1):21-33. PubMed ID: 15734340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Neural correlates of memory retrieval during recognition memory and cued recall.
    Rugg MD; Fletcher PC; Allan K; Frith CD; Frackowiak RS; Dolan RJ
    Neuroimage; 1998 Oct; 8(3):262-73. PubMed ID: 9758740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Dissociating word stem completion and cued recall as a function of divided attention at retrieval.
    Clarke AJ; Butler LT
    Memory; 2008 Oct; 16(7):763-72. PubMed ID: 18720222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Orienting attention in visual working memory requires central capacity: decreased retro-cue effects under dual-task conditions.
    Janczyk M; Berryhill ME
    Atten Percept Psychophys; 2014 Apr; 76(3):715-24. PubMed ID: 24452383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The influence of retrieval on retention.
    Carrier M; Pashler H
    Mem Cognit; 1992 Nov; 20(6):633-42. PubMed ID: 1435266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Interfering with free recall of words: Detrimental effects of phonological competition.
    Fernandes MA; Wammes JD; Priselac S; Moscovitch M
    Neuropsychologia; 2016 Sep; 90():59-71. PubMed ID: 27174519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Reading aloud: spelling-sound translation uses central attention.
    O'Malley S; Reynolds MG; Stolz JA; Besner D
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Mar; 34(2):422-9. PubMed ID: 18315417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Generation enhances semantic processing? The role of distinctiveness in the generation effect.
    Kinoshita S
    Mem Cognit; 1989 Sep; 17(5):563-71. PubMed ID: 2796741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Adult age differences in implicit and explicit memory: time course and encoding effects.
    Chiarello C; Hoyer WJ
    Psychol Aging; 1988 Dec; 3(4):358-66. PubMed ID: 3268280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies.
    Miller J; Ulrich R; Rolke B
    Cogn Psychol; 2009 May; 58(3):273-310. PubMed ID: 19281972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Bypassing the central bottleneck after single-task practice in the psychological refractory period paradigm: evidence for task automatization and greedy resource recruitment.
    Maquestiaux F; Laguë-Beauvais M; Ruthruff E; Bherer L
    Mem Cognit; 2008 Oct; 36(7):1262-82. PubMed ID: 18927042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings.
    Göthe K; Oberauer K; Kliegl R
    Cognition; 2016 May; 150():92-108. PubMed ID: 26878090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.