 Connection
David Huber to Young Adult
This is a "connection" page, showing publications David Huber has written about Young Adult.
|
|
| |
Connection Strength |
|
 |
|
 |
| |
0.439 |
|
|
|
-
Savalia T, Cowell RA, Huber DE. "Leap before you look": Conditions that suppress explicit, knowledge-based learning during visuomotor adaptation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2024 Aug; 50(8):785-807.
Score: 0.064
-
Wessel JR, Huber DE. Frontal cortex tracks surprise separately for different sensory modalities but engages a common inhibitory control mechanism. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 07; 15(7):e1006927.
Score: 0.046
-
Hopper WJ, Huber DE. Testing the primary and convergent retrieval model of recall: Recall practice produces faster recall success but also faster recall failure. Mem Cognit. 2019 05; 47(4):816-841.
Score: 0.045
-
Rusconi P, Huber DE. The perceptual wink model of non-switching attentional blink tasks. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Oct; 25(5):1717-1739.
Score: 0.043
-
Rieth CA, Huber DE. Comparing different kinds of words and word-word relations to test an habituation model of priming. Cogn Psychol. 2017 06; 95:79-104.
Score: 0.039
-
Hopper WJ, Finklea KM, Winkielman P, Huber DE. Measuring sexual dimorphism with a race-gender face space. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Oct; 40(5):1779-88.
Score: 0.032
-
Davelaar EJ, Tian X, Weidemann CT, Huber DE. A habituation account of change detection in same/different judgments. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2011 Dec; 11(4):608-26.
Score: 0.027
-
Huber DE, Tian X, Curran T, O'Reilly RC, Woroch B. The dynamics of integration and separation: ERP, MEG, and neural network studies of immediate repetition effects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Dec; 34(6):1389-416.
Score: 0.022
-
Gove J, Sanders DMW, Huber DE, Cowell RA. Age-related impairments in visual recall depend on what you are remembering. Neuropsychologia. 2026 Jun 06; 226:109440.
Score: 0.018
-
McCarter AC, Huber DE, Cowell RA. No evidence of a visual testing effect for novel, meaningless objects. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2025 Jul; 51(7):1122-1140.
Score: 0.017
-
Croteau J, Fornaciai M, Huber DE, Park J. The divisive normalization model of visual number sense: model predictions and experimental confirmation. Cereb Cortex. 2024 10 03; 34(10).
Score: 0.016
-
Kern H, Corani G, Huber D, Vermes N, Zaffalon M, Varini M, Wenzel C, Fringer A. Impact on place of death in cancer patients: a causal exploration in southern Switzerland. BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Oct 15; 19(1):160.
Score: 0.012
-
Sadil P, Potter KW, Huber DE, Cowell RA. Connecting the dots without top-down knowledge: Evidence for rapidly-learned low-level associations that are independent of object identity. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019 Jun; 148(6):1058-1070.
Score: 0.011
-
Carr EW, Huber DE, Pecher D, Zeelenberg R, Halberstadt J, Winkielman P. The ugliness-in-averageness effect: Tempering the warm glow of familiarity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017 Jun; 112(6):787-812.
Score: 0.010
-
Smith KA, Huber DE, Vul E. Multiply-constrained semantic search in the Remote Associates Test. Cognition. 2013 Jul; 128(1):64-75.
Score: 0.007
-
Liu J, Li J, Rieth CA, Huber DE, Tian J, Lee K. A dynamic causal modeling analysis of the effective connectivities underlying top-down letter processing. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Apr; 49(5):1177-1186.
Score: 0.006
-
Li J, Liu J, Liang J, Zhang H, Zhao J, Rieth CA, Huber DE, Li W, Shi G, Ai L, Tian J, Lee K. Effective connectivities of cortical regions for top-down face processing: a dynamic causal modeling study. Brain Res. 2010 Jun 22; 1340:40-51.
Score: 0.006
-
Liu J, Li J, Zhang H, Rieth CA, Huber DE, Li W, Lee K, Tian J. Neural correlates of top-down letter processing. Neuropsychologia. 2010 Jan; 48(2):636-41.
Score: 0.006
-
Tomlinson TD, Huber DE, Rieth CA, Davelaar EJ. An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Sep 15; 106(37):15588-93.
Score: 0.006
-
Li J, Liu J, Liang J, Zhang H, Zhao J, Huber DE, Rieth CA, Lee K, Tian J, Shi G. A distributed neural system for top-down face processing. Neurosci Lett. 2009 Feb 13; 451(1):6-10.
Score: 0.005
|
Connection Strength
The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.
Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.
|