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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9421564)

  • 41. Direct and indirect measures of intentional forgetting in children and adults: evidence for retrieval inhibition and reinstatement.
    Lehman EB; McKinley-Pace MJ; Wilson JA; Slavsky MD; Woodson ME
    J Exp Child Psychol; 1997 Feb; 64(2):295-316. PubMed ID: 9120384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Cue set size effects: sampling activated associates or cross-target interference?
    Nelson DL; Schreiber TA; Xu J
    Mem Cognit; 1999 May; 27(3):465-77. PubMed ID: 10355236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Incongruous item generation effects: a multiple-cue perspective.
    Soraci SA; Franks JJ; Bransford JD; Chechile RA; Belli RF; Carr M; Carlin M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1994 Jan; 20(1):67-78. PubMed ID: 8138789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The Retro-Cue Benefit for Verbal Material and Its Influence on the Probability of Intrusions Under Dual-Task Conditions.
    Krefeld-Schwalb A
    Exp Psychol; 2018 May; 65(3):128-138. PubMed ID: 29905113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Structured cues or modafinil for fatigue amelioration in clinicians? A double-blind, randomized controlled trial of critical clinical information recall in fatigued clinicians.
    Flindall I; Leff DR; Goodship J; Sugden C; Darzi A
    Surgery; 2016 Apr; 159(4):1181-90. PubMed ID: 26520004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Tests of the generality of the principle of encoding specificity.
    Postman L
    Mem Cognit; 1975 Nov; 3(6):663-72. PubMed ID: 24203908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Differential contribution of left and right prefrontal cortex to associative cued-recall memory: a parametric PET study.
    Lepage M
    Neurosci Res; 2004 Mar; 48(3):297-304. PubMed ID: 15154675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Effects of similarity on environmental context cueing.
    Smith SM; Handy JD; Angello G; Manzano I
    Memory; 2014; 22(5):493-508. PubMed ID: 23721293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Item-specific interference caused by cue-dependent forgetting.
    Chandler CC; Gargano GJ
    Mem Cognit; 1995 Nov; 23(6):701-8. PubMed ID: 8538443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Generation effects and the lack thereof: the role of transfer-appropriate processing.
    de Winstanley PA; Bjork EL; Bjork RA
    Memory; 1996 Jan; 4(1):31-48. PubMed ID: 8821084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Recall and response time norms for English-Swahili word pairs and facts about Kenya.
    Bangert AS; Heydarian NM
    Behav Res Methods; 2017 Feb; 49(1):124-171. PubMed ID: 26822669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Do you remember what you imagined you would do in that place? The motor encoding cue-failure effect in sighted and blind people.
    Cornoldi C; Corti MT; Helstrup T
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 1994 May; 47(2):311-29. PubMed ID: 8036267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. When will bigger be (recalled) better? The influence of category size on JOLs depends on test format.
    Hourihan KL; Tullis JG
    Mem Cognit; 2015 Aug; 43(6):910-21. PubMed ID: 25758175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. On the relationship between categorical frequency estimation and cued recall.
    Greene RL
    Mem Cognit; 1989 May; 17(3):235-9. PubMed ID: 2725260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Memory as discrimination: a challenge to the encoding-retrieval match principle.
    Poirier M; Nairne JS; Morin C; Zimmermann FG; Koutmeridou K; Fowler J
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2012 Jan; 38(1):16-29. PubMed ID: 21823814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Making remembering more memorable.
    Leppanen ML; Lyle KB
    Memory; 2018 Aug; 26(7):960-973. PubMed ID: 29291672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Source memory in the absence of successful cued recall.
    Cook GI; Marsh RL; Hicks JL
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Jul; 32(4):828-35. PubMed ID: 16822150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Divided attention facilitates intentional forgetting: evidence from item-method directed forgetting.
    Lee YS; Lee HM
    Conscious Cogn; 2011 Sep; 20(3):618-26. PubMed ID: 20880721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. The importance of cue familiarity and cue distinctiveness in prospective memory.
    McDaniel MA; Einstein GO
    Memory; 1993 Mar; 1(1):23-41. PubMed ID: 7584257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Fan effects in event-based prospective memory.
    Cook GI; Marsh RL; Hicks JL; Martin BA
    Memory; 2006 Oct; 14(7):890-900. PubMed ID: 16938699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.