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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9745380)

  • 1. Irrelevant sound disrupts order information in free recall as in serial recall.
    Beaman CP; Jones DM
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 1998 Aug; 51(3):615-36. PubMed ID: 9745380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The irrelevant sound effect under articulatory suppression is a suffix effect even with five-item lists.
    Hanley JR; Shah N
    Memory; 2012 Jul; 20(5):415-9. PubMed ID: 22497740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Serial recall of rhythms and verbal sequences: Impacts of concurrent tasks and irrelevant sound.
    Hall D; Gathercole SE
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Aug; 64(8):1580-92. PubMed ID: 21563018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The irrelevant sound effect under articulatory suppression: is it a suffix effect?
    Hanley JR; Hayes A
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2012 Mar; 38(2):482-7. PubMed ID: 21928934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The irrelevant sound effect: what needs modelling, and a tentative model.
    Page MP; Norris DG
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2003 Nov; 56(8):1289-300; discussion 1301-6. PubMed ID: 14578085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction.
    Marsh JE; Hughes RW; Jones DM
    Cognition; 2009 Jan; 110(1):23-38. PubMed ID: 19081558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: the effects of list length and output order.
    Ward G; Tan L; Grenfell-Essam R
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2010 Sep; 36(5):1207-41. PubMed ID: 20804293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reduction in auditory distraction by retrieval strategy.
    Perham N; Banbury SP; Jones DM
    Memory; 2007 May; 15(4):465-73. PubMed ID: 17469024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Similarities between the irrelevant sound effect and the suffix effect.
    Hanley JR; Bourgaize J
    Mem Cognit; 2018 Aug; 46(6):841-848. PubMed ID: 29600481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Auditory memory and the irrelevant sound effect: Further evidence for changing-state disruption.
    Campbell T; Beaman CP; Berry DC
    Memory; 2002 May; 10(3):199-214. PubMed ID: 11958724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Retroactive effects of irrelevant speech on serial recall from short-term memory.
    Norris D; Baddeley AD; Page MP
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2004 Sep; 30(5):1093-105. PubMed ID: 15355138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Speech versus non-speech as irrelevant sound: controlling acoustic variation.
    Little JS; Martin FH; Thomson RH
    Biol Psychol; 2010 Sep; 85(1):62-70. PubMed ID: 20553792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The contributions of encoding, retention, and recall to the Hebb effect.
    Oberauer K; Meyer N
    Memory; 2009 Oct; 17(7):774-81. PubMed ID: 19598058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Semantic similarity and immediate serial recall: is there a detrimental effect on order information?
    Saint-Aubin J; Poirier M
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 1999 May; 52(2):367-94. PubMed ID: 10428684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: the effect of concurrent task performance.
    Bhatarah P; Ward G; Tan L
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Mar; 32(2):215-29. PubMed ID: 16569142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Disruption of verbal STM by irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and manual tapping: do they have a common source?
    Larsen JD; Baddeley A
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2003 Nov; 56(8):1249-68. PubMed ID: 14578082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. When does between-sequence phonological similarity promote irrelevant sound disruption?
    Marsh JE; Vachon F; Jones DM
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Jan; 34(1):243-8. PubMed ID: 18194067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Can the irrelevant speech effect turn into a stimulus suffix effect?
    Schlittmeier SJ; Hellbrück J; Klatte M
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2008 May; 61(5):665-73. PubMed ID: 18421641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. ERP correlates of the irrelevant sound effect.
    Bell R; Dentale S; Buchner A; Mayr S
    Psychophysiology; 2010 Nov; 47(6):1182-91. PubMed ID: 20456662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Order information and free recall: evaluating the item-order hypothesis.
    Mulligan NW; Lozito JP
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2007 May; 60(5):732-51. PubMed ID: 17455079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.